Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CLWYD COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

HEREFORD CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (PORT OF AYR) ORDER. CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND TRUST (AMENDMENT) ORDER. CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

PETERHEAD HARBOURS (SOUTH BAY DEVELOPMENT). ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

No day named for Second Reading

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Labour Statistics

Mr. Evans: asked the Paymaster General what are the numbers of people who have been unemployed for over 12 months: and what was the figure in May 1979.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): On 11 July, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for over 12 months was 1,327,000, 41 per cent. of the total. The corresponding number of unemployed registrants in April 1979 was 367,000.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister accept that long-term unemployment is now the greatest problem facing our society—a problem that was scarcely noticeable under the Labour Government, but is major under the Tory Government? How does the hon. Gentleman think the two Cabinet Ministers will solve the problem when one Secretary of State for Employment could not?

Mr. Clark: The House will agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of long-term unemployment, which carries with it a sense of rejection and degradation and is a source of great concern to us all. It is for this

reason that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has set in train a number of initiatives devised specifically to bring the long-term unemployment back into the purlieu of the employment service, to make known to them all the facilities that are available and to make fresh contact with them, whether by post or by inviting them into jobcentres. I hope that the increasing economic activity will help bring this intractable problem towards a solution.

Mr. Powley: Does my hon. Friend agree that one among the many reasons for the level of unemployment is the demographic changes taking place, and that the number of people seeking employment has gone up dramatically over the past few years, which did not happen 10 years ago? Does the he agree further that in the years to come those demographic changes will alter today's position and that to ignore this factor is to ignore one of the reasons for the present level of unemployment?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. It is true that the number of jobs continues to go up and that we have increased it by 350,000. If the population of working age had stayed at the same levels, unemployment would now be in the 2 million range.

Mr. Hardy: What steps are the Government taking to monitor and respond to the situation in constituencies such as mine where jobs are being destroyed at a pace and to an extent that would not have been imaginable in 1979? Does the hon. Gentleman deny that in 12 months' time the position in such areas will be a great deal worse than it is today?

Mr. Clark: It is true, regrettably, that there are parts of the United Kingdom where the old technologies are obsolete and were new businesses have not yet been established. However, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the national picture he will see that the number of vacancies is higher than it has ever been during the last decade.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Minister aware that the special measures that the Government have made available to the long-term unemployed are so modest as in no way to approach what is needed to solve the problem? Will he undertake that his right hon. and noble Friend will come to Parliament with a scheme which will provide every long-term unemployed person with the opportunity of renewed work or at least work experience?

Mr. Clark: The House knows that we are already spending £2 billion of taxpayers' money on special employment and training measures, but it is hard to believe that permanent and lasting jobs could be created from this source after the tap of taxpayers' money had been cut off, or after, as would be the case if there were a Labour Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came scuttling back from the International Monetary Fund with his marching orders. Real jobs can be created only by increasing business and enterprise activity.

Job Seekers

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied that all those classified as unemployed are actively seeking work.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): No, Sir. Latest estimates for 1984 show that nearly one third of those


included in the unemployment count were either not actively seeking work or had a paid job during the week of the survey.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my hon. Friend seen the recent article by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)? Is it not scurrilous that he should attempt to "rubbish" statistics produced by an independent survey which were accurately and fairly presented by the Secretary of State for Employment in a an article in The Times?

Mr. Trippier: I think that "scurrilous" is the word. The survey to which my hon. Friend refers is the labour force survey, which was carried out in no fewer than 57,000 homes. It is regarded both in and out of Whitehall as a nonpolitical, independent and widely-accepted source of statistical information. I find it interesting that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has used that survey to his advantage when referring to second jobs. The Labour party does not like good news. Last year Britain created more new jobs than the whole of Europe put together. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is particularly scornful of the estimated growth in the number of self-employed. The official estimate of an increase of 393,000 is based upon the same statistical inquiry, the labour force survey.

Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that in any "snapshot" of the unemployed we see that people do not look for work in a particular week because they are realistic and know that work is not available? Does he realise that the annual survey found that 870,000 workers were seeking work but that they were not included in the figures because they were not entitled to benefits? I hope that he will not mock the unemployed by emulating Jeffrey Archer and suggesting that they are workshy and malingerers. That is not true. Does the Minister not realise that in six years of Conservative government unemployment has risen consistently every year? Is he not ashamed of that fact?

Mr. Trippier: It is not my intention, nor that of my colleagues, to mock the unemployed. However, we are sick to the back teeth of the Labour party's claim that it has a monopoly of compassion. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has the answer and that there is an easy solution to this problem, will he explain to the House in some detail why unemployment rose so dramatically when the Labour Government were in office?

Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency 4,600 people are registered as unemployed and that 82 per cent. of companies report difficulty over recruiting skilled labour, including companies in the engineering industry? At the skillcentre, 24 places are available on engineering courses, but the average occupancy rate is only eight, and the course is therefore to be curtailed. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient is being done to draw to the attention of the registered unemployed the fact that there are great opportunities to retrain for jobs, which are available in large numbers?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is correct. Vacancies notified to MSC jobcentres are only about one third of the true level. Employers are best placed to tackle the many possible causes of shortages by training and retraining. That is why we have adopted the adult training strategy which allows for national Government and local grants to

help industry meet its skill requirements. We hope that employers in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country will take advantage of that assistance.

Mr. Prescott: I add my congratulations to the Minister of State and the Paymaster General on their appointments, although I deplore the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment is in a non-elected place, from where he throws insults at the labour force by calling them work shy.
May I encourage the Paymaster General and the Secretary of State to set a precedent in their Department by giving us the real unemployment facts? Do they recognise that their labour force survey reveals that 870,000 people are available for work but not registered? That means that the official unemployment level is well over 4 million and between three and four times greater than that which the Conservative Government inherited in 1979.

Mr. Trippier: On behalf of myself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He was kinder than he thinks because he promoted me to Minister of State. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps a little late in referring to the fact that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State is a non-elected Member, because Mr. Bickerstaff mentioned that at the Labour party conference. That was surprising, since he was elected for life by that famous British institution known as the block vote. The truth is that the statistical survey is accurate. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in that he referred only to the 870,000 people who are not claiming benefit but who are looking for and taking jobs. That point was made in the article that my right hon. and noble Friend wrote on 5 October. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the fact that 940,000 people are claiming benefit but not looking for work.

Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that one must look behind the statistics? Does he accept that the largest number of long-term unemployed are in the south-east, the area with the largest number of job vacancies? In the south-east, about 9,000 job vacancies have remained unfilled for two months or more, when 12 per cent. of CBI firms report that labour shortages are the reason for restricted output in the future. The MSC has identified 173 occupational areas with labour shortages. Is not one of the problems that unemployment benefit officers know who is unemployed but do not know where the jobs are, while the jobcentres know where the jobs are but do not know who is unemployed?

Mr. Trippier: We are well aware of the difficulties caused by the fewer job opportunities in the north compared with the south. That is one of the principal reasons for a regional policy. As a northern Member, I am well aware of the difficulties. It is important to stress the adult training strategy and the many pluses and achievements which have resulted from the youth training scheme. That scheme is without doubt a success and is recognised as such by those who take advantage of it.

Byssinosis

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Paymaster General how many claims have been made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 for compensation for byssinosis sufferers in the last year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): In the 12 months to 30 September 1985 there were 66 claims.

Mr. Lamond: Is the Minister aware that that number would be increased considerably if he reconsidered the scheme and changed the rules? If he did that, many hundreds who deserve the compensation, including many in my constituency who are debarred from claiming the lump sum compensation because they once worked for a firm which is still in existence, would be given the chance to obtain it? Is he aware that traditionally in the textile industry people work for a number of firms?

Mr. Bottomley: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his persistence. We exchanged correspondence on this issue earlier in the year. The Act operates when the previous employer is still in business. It is important for people to make claims against previous employers who are still in business.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that it is all very well for him to give the number of applications, but that it would be interesting to know the number of rejections? Have not many applications been rejected, yet when the post mortems were carried out the applicants were found to be riddled with the disease? I want the Minister to investigate the problem and do something about it.

Mr. Bottomley: I anticipated the hon. Gentleman's point, and so can tell him that 2,534 cases have been approved and fewer than 500 rejected. More than £16 million has been paid to byssinosis sufferers since the Act came into force.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that some people might fall between two stools because they have worked for companies which have become defunct and companies which are still in existence, so that the buck is passed backwards and forwards?
Is the Minister aware that a group of people suffering from emphysema or chronic bronchitis may not obtain full recognition under the 1979 Act? Is there not a case for reviewing the Act to ensure that those people are treated fairly?

Mr. Bottomley: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the part that he has played in the implementation of the Act. We intend to extend the range of the Act, but I cannot offer much progress on his other points.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Litherland: asked the Paymaster General how many people are currently employed in the United Kingdom; and how many were in employment in May 1979.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Paymaster General how many people were in employment in May 1979; and how many are in employment now.

The Paymaster General (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): In June 1985 there were 24,245,000 people in employment in the United Kingdom. In June 1979 there were 25,375,000.

Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister agree that the figures are grim, and that if translated into inner city areas are horrific? Is he aware that 20,000 jobs have been lost

in one area of my constituency in recent years, that there is 60 per cent. male unemployment, and that the last steel manufacturing mill closed only two weeks ago?
Does the Minister not think that it is the height of hypocrisy to give those people hope when it is the design and deliberate policy of the Government to create unemployment?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that the figures on employment have been quite encouraging since the spring of 1983. On the best objective estimates, 677,000 new jobs have been created in the British economy since then. Obviously, we must do everything possible to speed up the process of creating new jobs now that we have sustained growth in the economy.
I know that there is bad news in the inner cities, which is why the city action teams are concentrating on coordinating the vast amount of Government money being put into those areas. There is also good news in Manchester with the development of the exhibition centre at Manchester Central station, which will create a great deal of new, permanent employment in the city.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that in the main those in new employment since June 1983 are part-time workers? [Interruption.] I remind Conservative Members that they are the last people who should speak about part-time employment, because most of them are engaged it it. [Interruption.] There are about 300—[Interruption.].

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right as anyone to speak.

Mr. Skinner: I do not need any lessons from the moonlighters on the Conservative Benches.
Is the Minister aware that the Northern Bus Company has stated during the past few days that, because of the Government's Transport Bill, 25 per cent. of its employees will be made redundant—either compulsorily or voluntarily? Are the Government concerned only with propping up the casino economy—banks that go into default and financial institutions? Have they not attacked the industrial base every week of every year that they have been in office?

Mr. Clarke: I notice that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has just taken his place. If he had been here sooner, instead of engaging in some part-time occupation, his earlier question could have been answered.
A substantial proportion of the new jobs being created are part time and self employed. That reflects the social change that has been taking place for many years, and which will continue to be reflected as we create employment in a modern economy.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not committed to social change. He prefers traditional industry with traditional organisation inside that industry. We are creating an economy in which more people will he employed in service industries, which is the pattern of other developed economies. I am sorry that that does not fit the hon. Gentleman's political preconceptions.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend remember a speech made in 1978 by a former Labour Minister, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), in which he said that he could accurately predict the levels of unemployment as they are now, that they would be due entirely to demographic factors and that it


would be wrong for anyone to blame them on either a Labour or a Conservative Government? What has changed since then—the facts of the real world, or the fact that Labour Members no longer live in the real world?

Mr. Clarke: The Government have a duty to create the conditions in which more employment can be created, and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is wrong for Labour Members to change their view simply because they are in opposition. It is equally wrong for them to propose policies based on arbitrary figures plucked out of the air about the number of people who would be employed if they were in office and to promise glibly, as the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) does, a return to full employment, when he knows that many of the conditions required to achieve that are beyond the control of the Government.

Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. and learned Friend point out, amid the constant cries of bad news from the Opposition, the good news that Wrighton is developing its factory in Coventry and that International Harvester is reopening in Sheffield, an area of high unemployment? It is not all bad news.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is right to point out that in the present economic situation one can select good and bad news. We have sustained growth in the economy, rising output, record-breaking investment and new employment being created. The task of everyone is to maintain that progress and speed up the development of new jobs.

Ms. Richardson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that mainly women are being forced into part-time jobs which are badly paid and have bad conditions? for example, many of them lack holidays and other entitlements. Does he also agree, as he referred to training for full-time employment, that his Department would do well to change the rules back and allow married women to take part in the community programme?

Mr. Clarke: One reason why the increased rate of employment is not reducing the total of unemployed is that many more women are entering the labour market. It is a perfectly desirable consequence of social changes that they should be doing that, but it follows that many of them are actively looking for part-time work. They are jobs that people require and that are of value to the economy, so there is no point in dismissing part-time employment.
The answer to the hon. Lady's question about the community programme is that, in my view, it is right that the programme should concentrate on the needs of the long-term unemployed. The first aim of the community programme must be to make it easier for those people to get themselves back into the world of employment. Other aims must be subordinate to that.

Mr. Fallon: As the biggest single source of new employment is likely to be self employment, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider changing the rules to allow the status of self employment as of right rather than as a privilege surrendered by the Treasury?

Mr. Clarke: About one tenth of the work force is self employed, the highest figure for 60 years. From an examination of international examples and the experience of good advanced economies elsewhere, one can expect that proportion to increase. At the same time, we must not have abuse of the status of self employment for tax and

insurance purposes. Having said that, it is good news that we have just reduced the national insurance contribution for the self employed, thus reducing a burden on them when they create their own businesses and provide employment for others.

Trade Unions (Political Funds)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Paymaster General what information he has as to the numbers of unions that have now undertaken the balloting of their members on the political fund following recent legislation.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: According to press reports, 19 trade unions have recently completed political fund review ballots.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Government be congratulating union members, including members of the Minister's union, the TGWU, on the way in which they voted—by such overwhelming majorities—to retain their political funds? Is the Minister aware that one of the many reasons why union members have voted in that way is the unfairness of the law in that companies which donate for political purposes do not need to have political ballots? When will the Government ensure that companies must have political funds and conduct ballots if they wish to contribute to the Tory party?.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is one of those who have tried to explain during the passage of various pieces of legislation how difficult it would be for unions to have ballots. The ballot held by the Transport and General Workers Union has shown that instead of having about 30,000 members contracted out. 120.000 voted against the political levy. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman should join me in making it plain to others —the 100,000—how they and many others can contract out.

Mr. Rowe: Having sat through the proceedings on the Trade Union Bill in Committee, when the intention to ballot trade unions on the political levy was fought tooth and nail by the Opposition, does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that the Opposition should now be crowing over some kind if victory? The victory is for the arguments advanced by the Government, to the effect that trade union members should be given a proper chance to make their views clear.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear that if the ballots had taken place a year ago, the results may have been very different. It is clear also that if ballots are held again in nine or 10 years' time, the results may be different. If that were not so, there would be no reason for the Opposition to say that they will take away the right of union members to review every 10 years whether to have a political levy. If the Opposition were not frightened of trade union members, they would not want to alter the provisions that are set out in the Act.

Mr. Prescott: The Minister is always proudly proclaiming that he is a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. As he believes that ballots provide a chance of giving trade union members the right to control their unions, will he tell us whether he participated in the ballot that was held by the TGWU, and give us his views?

Mr. Bottomley: My views are well known. I contributed to the political levy for years. As the 


Government have made plain, if we want democratic elections we must allow people to decide for themselves which way they will vote.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Did the hon. Gentleman vote?

Mr. Bottomley: I have given the same answer on all the ballot issues and I shall continue to maintain it, however much, and irrespective of the way in which people shout at union branch meetings. Secret ballots are designed to be just that.

Labour Statistics

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Paymaster General how many young people are currently unemployed.

Mr. Trippier: On 11 July 1985, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of unemployed claimants aged under 18 years in the United Kingdom was 177,600.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister concede that it is a diabolical scandal when such figures are presented to the House? Has he read the survey prepared by Marplan, which states categorically that three out of four of those interviewed took the view tht the Government do not care two hoots about unemployment and creating jobs for the unemployed? Is he aware that the survey reveals that many of those who are on the youth training scheme regard it a a cheap form of employment? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who, is, of course, a member of the Cabinet, to flex his muscles and get the Government's policy changed in order to get young people back to work as quickly as possible?

Mr. Trippier: It is disgraceful of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government do not care two hoots about youth unemployment. That is a ridiculous assertion. Earlier in the year, with the publication of the White Paper on education and training, the Government stated they hoped that unemployment among young people under 18 years of age would become a thing of the past. The hon. Gentleman seeks to rubbish the YTS. He forgets that the scheme was put forward by the MSC, and that the TUC, which is an effective and strong member of the MSC, supports it. He tries to rubbish the YTS, but 84 per cent. of trainees are satisfied and find the scheme to be valuable. The hon. Gentleman should be rather more careful in what he says.

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend will know that the chairman of the British Tourist Authority has said that if the Government are prepared to put up £5 million for the promotion of tourism, he believes that he can raise a further £10 million from private industry. That £15 million would generally generate £200 million worth of new business, which would be worth about 10,000 new jobs, many of which would go to young people. Would my hon. Friend be prepared to support such a scheme?

Mr. Trippier: I am aware that Mr. Duncan Bluck, the chairman of the British Tourist Authority, has said what my hon. Friend has attributed to him.. I have had the pleasure of meeting him, and in the near future I shall have the opportunity again of meeting him and members of his board. I shall examine what he says in great detail. I hope the House will welcome the fact that tourism is now the

responsibility of the Department of Employment and that there is a clear recognition not only of the wealth creation, but the employment potential, of tourism.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman really care about unemployed young people? Will the Government use this occasion to dissociate themselves from the statement by Jeffrey Archer on the well-known radio programme "The World This Weekend", when he insulted all young people? Will the Government also dissociate themselves from the remarks of Lord Young, who said that there was no relationship between levels of 60 and 80 per cent. of black young people unemployment in our inner-city areas and recent urban disturbances? If the Government do not use this opportunity to do something, they are no more that a bunch of Pinocchios manipulated from somewhere else.

Mr. Trippier: Before the hon. Gentleman is carried away with his own rhetoric, let me assure him that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has gone to enormous lengths to show that the Government, and this Department in particular, are extremely concerned about the level of unemployment. We have said that time and again.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an interview of Jeffrey Archer on Radio 4. I heard that programme, and I have read the transcript. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is distorting what was said by Mr. Archer. He actually said, "I am not saying there are not groups who are not genuinely in need.".

Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many places where there are jobs, as in my constituency, there is a shortage of housing? What can he do to help young people to find accommodation in a situation like that?

Mr. Trippier: It is part of the trading strategy to which I referred when answering an earlier question. We should encourage employers, wherever possible, either to bus people into work or to look favourably on housing.

Wages Councils

Mr. Dixon: asked the Paymaster General how many representations he has received about his announcement on the future of wages councils.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have received 64 representations on the future of wages councils since my right hon. Friend's announcement on 17 July.

Mr. Dixon: Is it not a disgrace that, of the 94 nations which are signatories to the ILO convention, the United Kingdom should be the first nation to renounce it? Is it not criminal that the Government, at a time when they have accepted the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body which has awarded judges, admirals and generals massive pay increases of up to 47 per cent., should be attacking those at the bottom of the wages scale? To get those in high salaried positions to work harder the Government gave them massive salary increases, but those on low salaries are to have their wages cut in order to make them work harder.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. Our reason for proposing reform is that we think that this particularly Edwardian method of fixing wages is nowadays reducing the job prospects of many young people. For that reason, we are quite sure that a simplified


system will still give protection, where it is required, but will make it easier for young people to find jobs in the trades covered. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, first, on remembering to be here, and, secondly, on remembering what his question was about.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the main there is nothing wrong with wages councils? However, in one area, to which he has already referred, something must be done about their ability to fix young people's wages at too high a level. If my right hon. and learned Friend can deal with that, he can keep the wages councils and still provide more jobs for young people within the limits of the labour market and wages.

Mr. Clarke: As my right hon. Friend announced in July, that is broadly the Government's intention. It appears that wages councils have fixed the pay for younger workers at too high a level in relation to adult workers in the trades covered by the councils. Therefore, the councils are unintentionally reducing the number of jobs that could be offered to young people. We intend to act to do something about that.

Mr. Speaker: Ms. Clare Short.

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ms. Clare Short.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit, on the basis of the consultation on his document, that the overwhelming majority of people oppose the Government's policy of weakening and undermining the wages councils? What is his evidence for the Government's amazing suggestion that the only way in which jobs can be created is by cutting the wages of the poorest workers? Today the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that young people who earn £40 or £50 a week are earning too much. Will he comment on the research commissioned by the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers from the department of applied economics at Cambridge university, which demonstrates that the only bit of research evidence that the Government had to support their case was fabricated and ill-informed? That research was published this week, and we should like the Government to comment on it.

Mr. Clarke: Not for the first time economists at Cambridge university are disagreeing among themselves. A number of their studies have come to varying conclusions. A few moments ago I thought that there was agreement on both sides of the House that we should strive to increase employment and improve employment prospects. The moment the Government move to remove unnecessary regulations in the wages market and an outmoded method of fixing young workers' pay and to set out the details of all terms and conditions for workers in certain industries, the Opposition object and defend past practices. We are convinced that the changes we are making will increase job opportunities for many people in the industries affected.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the reason why 50 per cent. of young people in Germany go into apprenticeships and only 5 per cent. of young people in Britain do so is that in this country young people have been effectively priced out of jobs by trade unions, supported by wages councils wage rates?

Mr. Clarke: If we do not break the practices that are developing in some industries, whereby inexperienced school leavers move almost immediately to adult wage rates based on national negotiations, we shall merely ensure that youth unemployment is too high. It is for that reason that the Government are acting with respect to wages councils and other matters.

Youth Training Scheme (Managing Agencies)

Mr. Park: asked the Paymaster General if he is satisfied with Manpower Services Commission procedures for monitoring youth training scheme managing agencies.

Mr. Trippier: Yes, Sir. By the end of July this year nearly every current programme under the youth training scheme had been monitored.

Mr. Park: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in spite of that information, we continue to receive reports that many of the schemes are still used as a source of cheap labour and that the quality of the training is not up to the standards that we should expect to enable young people to move from a training scheme to a job?

Mr. Trippier: Seventy five per cent. of the schemes to which I referred in my substantive answer meet all the required standards of YTS. Those that do not—which fall down on relatively minor points—can be put right within the life of the programme. On several occasions the Opposition, not least the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who talks about slave labour markets, have said that this is a cheap form of labour. The right hon. Gentleman wants in this country the sort of society that would breed that kind of slave labour. The money that is made available is an allowance. It is not meant to be a wage.

Mr. Bellingham: As my hon. Friend is anxious to encourage unemployed people to set up businesses on their own account, will he inform the House of the success of the enterprise allowance scheme? Why do the Opposition rubbish a good scheme and fail to recognise one when they see it?

Mr. Trippier: Whenever they can, the Opposition try to rubbish the enterprise allowance scheme. This scheme has been an enormous success. During the past two years 100,000 businesses have been set up under the scheme. Three out of four of those businesses have succeeded. The cost per job is £2,600, which compares favourably with similar schemes.

Employment Creation

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Paymaster General what steps he is taking to assist small areas of particularly high unemployment.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government have recently set up city action teams to cover each inner city partnership area to co-ordinate and improve the impact of the very substantial Government assistance already available in these areas. We are reviewing the way in which Government resources might be better targeted to give the most effective assistance there and in other localities of particularly high unemployment.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the artificial travel-to-work


areas hide pockets of huge unemployment — often unemployment of more than 50 per cent.? Will he at least extend to those small areas the meagre assistance that is given to assisted areas? The travel-to-work areas are hidden because of the way in which the system operates.

Mr. Clarke: I agree that the incidence of unemployment varies between travel-to-work areas. They are defined as travel-to-work areas because it is usually possible to move about in a city to find work. It is impossible to break cities down into little self-contained labour markets as a way of otherwise defining the figures. I agree that there are other areas outside the partnership areas where we need to examine particular problems. I do not agree that assistance in the partnership areas is meagre. It amounts to £670 million across all Government programmes.

Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would assist areas of very high unemployment, such as Erdington and Sparkbrook in Birmingham and elsewhere, if Labour local authorities did not make big rate increases like Birmingham's increase of 43 per cent.?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. One finds repeatedly that those who speak most vociferously locally about the lack of new employment going to their cities are councilors who are raising their rates and making their cities unattractive for any kind of new business, and small businesses in particular.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Colvin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Colvin: In welcoming my right hon. Friend back from her travels, may I ask her to find time today to note that her demonstration of resolute leadership and statesmanship in Nassau and New York — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading"]—not only gave the Conservative party a lead in the opinion polls, but made us favourites to win the next general election? Will she maintain that resolute leadership on the international scene to combat the killer drugs trade, which is one of the country's growing social evils?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, I raise the vital problem of drugs in whatever international forum I attend, whether the United Nations, Nassau, or an economic summit or the European Council, because I am anxious to get as much co-operation as possible. It is necessary not only to take action in this country; but to try to stop the cultivation overseas of the plants which are used to make these drugs. We have recently given more money for that. We have also increased the numbers of Customs officers and the Metropolitan police. I find increasing consciousness in statesmen of all countries that we must together take action to defeat this menace.

Mr. Steel: As the Prime Minister is partially responsible for the security services, will she, in the light of the expensive fiasco of the Cyprus spy trial, reconsider her persistent refusal to countenance the setting up of a parliamentary supervisory committee on the security services? Is she aware that the United States Congress has such a committee? Why should we not have one? Will she consider it in the light of the report which Lord Hooson is preparing on the lessons to be learnt from the trial, of which I will send her a copy?

The Prime Minister: No. I believe that we have taken the right decision on the fundamental matter. The only problem that arises immediately for me, as distinct from those that will be dealt with in a statement later by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, is the Security Commission. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I decided in June 1984 that, given the gravity of the apparent breaches of security and the length of time the trial proceedings would be likely to take, it would be right to make an immediate reference to the Security Commission. The reference was not announced at the time, in order not in any way to prejudice the course of justice. In view of the acquittals, I will, of course, consult the chairman of the Security Commission and report to the House in due course.

Mr. Ewing: May I take the first opportunity that we have had in the House to congratulate the Prime Minister on becoming an old-age pensioner during the recess? Is she aware that if this had happened under a Labour Government and she had been entitled to claim benefit, she and Dennis would have got £9·50 a week more than they would get under this Government?

The Prime Minister: I note that under a Labour Government we would frequently have missed our Christmas bonus, which we would never have done under this Government.

Mr. Warren: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Warren: I recognise that there has been rapid growth in business productivity and excellent growth in new businesses under my right hon. Friend's leadership —those facts are undeniable—but will my right hon. Friend, as a scientist, turn her attention to the future standards of science in our community? Is she aware that there is grave concern in the scientific community about the way in which we are losing our strength in the world of international science which is the seed corn of our future wealth?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in this subject, but I do not think that the problem is a lack of scientific work being done here. The problem is that we are not so good as our competitors at turning that work to technical advantage and industrial profit. I believe that we should concentrate on that aspect. On the question of pure science, I recently opened the new Spallation neutron source which is an excellent way of exploring the structure of matter, and which will be of great advantage to this country. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will concentrate his attention on how the results of our work can be turned into industrial profit and jobs.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If a member of the right hon. Lady's Cabinet makes a speech criticising the policy of her Government, should he resign, or should he be sacked?

The Prime Minister: I think he would realise that he has a very tolerant Prime Minister.

Mr. Ward: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who try to undermine the police have special blame from the rest of the community? Will she take this opportunity to confirm that she will make available to the police the men and equipment that may be needed to ensure that there will never be any no-go areas anywhere in the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that there should not be any no-go areas in the United Kingdom, but for that purpose we need not only the numbers of police, properly equipped, but the full cooperation of the local citizenry and leaders of the community, because keeping law and order is the task of the whole country as well as of the police.

Mr. Wigley: In condemning international terrorism in all circumstances, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to condemn the action of the French Government in relation to the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand?

The Prime Minister: I think that the French Government have already made their apologies on that matter. We are doing all that we possibly can to assist New Zealand in finding the facts.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Prime Minister find time today to go to the South Bank to see the statue of Nelson Mandela erected by the GLC and unveiled yesterday by Oliver Tambo, president of the African National Congress of South Africa? While Mr. Tambo is in this country, will she seek to have talks with him to find out what is really going on in South Africa and explain to him why her Government are still the mainstay of the racist regime in South Africa?

The Prime Minister: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions in the order in which they were raised are, first, no, and, secondly, that I note that at a press conference in the House on 25 October Mr. Tambo said:
We are going to step up the struggle. It is going to accelerate. The ANC embraces violence. We are going to intensify the struggle.
Then, in the TV-am programme on Sunday, he said:
The ANC will go to every conceivable length to destroy the apartheid system in South Africa. The escalated armed struggle cannot avoid the use of guns.
Is that what the GLC supports?

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the anxiety felt in this country about air safety. Can she confirm that the Government have every confidence in the

integrity and professionalism of the accident investigations branch? Does she condemn the acts of a television company which is conducting the trial by television of a matter that is still under investigation—the fire disaster at Manchester airport?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that we can find out the causes of such a terrible accident in that way. I visited Manchester airport. It is a most impressive airport. One can only be impressed by the services which came to the aid of all the people on that aircraft during that terrible, tragic accident. I met the Chief Inspector of Accidents. I have every confidence in him and in the fact that he will conduct a full and wide-ranging investigation into that accident. Because of the complexities, the final report will take many months to produce. It is that investigation that will sort out the causes.

Mr. Kinnock: In the current Government discussions on public spending, the Foreign Secretary wants more for overseas aid, the Secretary of State for the Environment wants more for housing and the Secretary of State for Social Services wants more to maintain child benefit. Does the Prime Minister support them, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in resisting them?

The Prime Minister: I support the taxpayer, out of whose pocket it all comes.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister realise that the overwhelming majority of taxpayers, who also have strong consciences, now have a Prime Minister who is prepared to watch the spread of starvation in the Third world, further decay of housing in our country and the further impoverishment of families? Does she think that, with her attitude, she truly leads a nation that is of good conscience?

The Prime Minister: All the expenditure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make comes out of the pockets of those people—that is a fact that he is always trying to run away from—and 40 per cent. of income tax comes from those on average earnings and less. I do not notice them saying that, they have sufficient take-home pay. If they were saying that, we should not have so many wage claims, which he supports all the way along the line.

Mr. John Townend: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has overwhelming support among thousands of workers whose jobs depend upon trade with South Africa for her stand against sanctions? Did the Commonwealth conference consider taking action against Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and Uganda, whose security forces are responsible for far more deaths resulting from police action against rioters than are those in South Africa?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friends know that, among other matters, I can see little point in sanctions which will create more unemployment in this country, only to create more unemployment in South Africa. That seems to me to be a ridiculous policy and one that would not work.
With regard to the other matter, violence is never acceptable as an instrument of political change. The


sooner we get that message home, the better. The Opposition will not agree with that, but the Government say that violence is never acceptable as an instrument of political change.

Mr. Faulds: In her opposition to international terrorism, would the Prime Minister care to comment on the Israeli bombing attacks in Tunis and the American piracy in forcing an Egyptian plane to land in Sicily, which then nearly led to Italian troops, in defending Italian sovereignty, having to shoot American soldiers who wanted to take the Palestinians straight to the United States?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have in fact condemned the attack on Tunis.
With regard to the second part, an act of piracy had already occurred in taking over a cruise ship. I believe that the United States was fully justified in attempting to bring those pirates to justice.

Mr. Stern: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stern: Will my right hon. Friend join many Conservative Members in welcoming the final passage today of the Transport Bill, which will lead to a wider spread and more reliable public transport system, which has been fast disappearing over many years?.

The Prime Minister: Yes. I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I shall be better pleased when the Bill completes its passage. It will end a system under which fares were going up and up, subsidies were going up and up, and services were going down and down. I believe that we shall get better service as a result of the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Freeson: Is it the Prime Minister's intention to restore to the inner cities the £2,000 million of resources that have been removed over the past few years?

The Prime Minister: Since 1979 the Government have allocated £1,900 million in urban programme grams to inner cities. The urban programme has more than tripled from £93 million in 1978–79 to £338 million in 1985–86 —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has the brains to work it out for himself. The programme has more than tripled, from £93 million in 1978–79 to £338 million in 1985–86. We need to look not only at the amounts but at the use to which the money is put. We want to get far more value for money rather than increase the money available.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In future, could you try to restrict the amount of time taken by Ministers in replying to questions? Some of the statements, which were not replies, were supercilious and, indeed, stopped me asking question No. 15, which is very important.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be a very good practice in the House if questions and answers could be briefer.

Commonwealth Meeting

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a brief statement on my visits to Nassau for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting from 16–22 October, and to New York on 23–24 October for the 40th anniversary of the United Nations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary accompanied me to Nassau.
I have arranged for copies of the communiqué from the Commonwealth meeting to be placed in the Library of the House.
Much of our time at that meeting was devoted to the problems of South Africa. We were unanimous in our abhorrence of apartheid, in our wish to see fundamental peaceful change in South Africa as soon as possible, and in our desire to find practical ways in which the Commonwealth could help secure that objective.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has already told the House. we reached an agreement which was endorsed by all 46 Governments attending the meeting. That agreement is set out in the Commonwealth accord on South Africa. I wish to emphasise four points from the accord.
First, we called on the South African Government to establish a dialogue with representatives of the black community with a view to establishing a non-racial and representative government. Secondly, the dialogue should be initiated in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides. Thirdly, we agreed to set up a group of eminent Commonwealth persons to encourage and facilitate dialogue. Fourthly, we agreed on a programme of common action which incorporated a number of measures which we were already taking, together with two new measures of which my right hon. and learned Friend has already informed the House.
The Commonwealth accord is a clear political signal from the united members of the Commonwealth of the need for rapid change within South Africa as well as of the need for the South African Government to end their illegal occupation of Namibia. We shall review the situation in six months' time.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed on a number of other matters, including a declaration on world order reaffirming the support of the Commonwealth for the United Nations, a welcome for the report of the Commonwealth Consultative Group on the vulnerability of small states; the need for greater co-operation both to counter the international traffic in illicity drugs and to deny to those convicted of drug trafficking the proceeds of their crime, and the need for greater co-operation to prevent and combat terrorism.
I believe that the outcome of the meeting demonstrated the capacity of the Commonwealth, despite widely varying initial views, to reach a sensible and realistic agreement acceptable to all Governments. Its rejection of violence as a way to solve the problems of South Africa is of particular importance. I believe that the outcome of the meeting is one which fully meets the interests and concerns of the United Kingdom.
I subsequently visited New York from 23 to 24 October to address the 40th anniversary session of the General Assembly of the United Nations and for meetings with

other Heads of Government. I held bilateral discussions with President Reagan, Prime Minister Craxi, Prime Minister Peres, Premier Zhao Ziyang and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I also attended a meeting with President Reagan and the Heads of Government of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and Japan to discuss the forthcoming meeting of the President and Mr. Gorbachev. We expressed our support for, and confidence in, President Reagan's approach to this important meeting and we wish him well.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: We welcome the Prime Minister's further condemnation of apartheid in her statement but regret that she undermines the force of her words against apartheid by saying that she is willing to take only a "tiny little bit" of action against apartheid.
The Prime Minister has spoken on previous occasions of "signals" to South Africa. Does she not realise that the inconsistency between her words and her actions signals only comfort to President Botha and those of his regime? Is she further aware that leaders of opinion in South Africa, including Desmond Tutu, reject her excuses for not imposing tougher sanctions as sophistries, and that many inside and outside South Africa agree with that estimate of her attitude?
On 25 July the right hon. Lady told the House that sanctions would be "counter-productive". Is she aware that we welcome the change in that view, which she has signified by her agreement to the Nassau accord and the way in which she belatedly recognises the failure of so-called constructive engagement strategies, and that we also welcome the usefulness of economic pressures in pursuit of peaceful change in South Africa, which she now apparently endorses?
We wish every success to the Commonwealth mission, provided, of course, that its activities are not used as a means of delaying or diminishing pressures on apartheid from outside. In order to clarify her position on the initiative, will the Prime Minister confirm that when she reviews the situation in six months' time she will be prepared to join in further action if the Commonwealth leaders on that mission judge that further pressure is required?
I gather that there is some difficulty in choosing a British representative for the Commonwealth mission. I put it to the Prime Minister that we have a number of very suitable candidates in the House and that she could usefully consider distinguished and well qualified Members, including, perhaps, those from Cardiff and Bexley. [Interruption.] We will settle for "useful". "Superb" would involve my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
We hear what the Prime Minister says about the need to stop violence in South Africa, and of course we earnestly hope that that will occur, but will she tell us what she is doing to ensure that the inherent violent system of apartheid is ended, for that, in itself, is the root of all political violence in South Africa?
As for the Prime Minister's discussions with President Reagan, her statement was, to say the least, very uncommunicative. May I ask her the following questions, so that she can enlarge on what she has told us?
First, are the Americans still willing to negotiate about the arms race in space, which was agreed between Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Shultz at their February meeting in


order to set the agenda for the forthcoming summit, and does that agreement include discussion of the strategic defence initiative?
Secondly, does the Prime Minister stand by her statement in New York on 24 October:
as I understand it there will be a further initiative before the meeting
between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev on 19 November? Is that still the right hon. Lady's feeling, or was that wishful thinking, resulting from the reasonable desire which she and others have that President Reagan will announce counter-proposals before going to Geneva? Can she, in any event, confirm that President Reagan will report back to NATO after the Geneva summit?
Thirdly, is the Prime Minister aware — [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] The Prime Minister could have said all this in her statement if she had not made it so abrupt. Is the Prime Minister aware that while a plan to curb regional conflicts between the super-powers would be welcome, especially in respect of the middle east, that process should not distract attention, diminish effort or in any way inhibit work to secure an early agreement to stop the nuclear arms race?
Fourthly, and finally, can the Prime Minister confirm that she interprets the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty in the same way as Mr. Shultz and Mr. Paul Nitze, and that so-called new principles could not justify the testing of components or of sub-components of an anti-ballistic missile system?

The Prime Minister: I note that when I make a long statement the right hon. Gentleman wants it short, and that when I make it short he wants it long. I tried to be brief in this statement. It suits me very well when the statement is briefer than the questions.
As regards sanctions, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Labour Government were absolutely against far-reaching economic sanctions. Indeed, they said in 1978—[AN HON. MEMBER: "That was the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)."] No, it was not. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said:
We voted against"—
the sanctions
together with France, West Germany, the USA and some other Western countries because we do not agree that the far-reaching economic measures which the resolution calls for would produce the changes in South Africa which we would all like to see." —[Official Report, 16 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 9.]
We wholly agree. That is why we are fully against—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: That was never Labour party policy.

The Prime Minister: That was stated from this Box — not by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—on 16 January 1978 as official
Labour party policy, even if the hon. Gentleman does not like it.
The only strict sanction that we are operating at the moment is the one against armaments, in accordance with the mandatory resolution of the Security Council, which we have been operating for some time. The others are not strictly sanctions. They are a number of unilateral measures, that we have been taking for some time, concerning such things as add-on computers, new nuclear contracts, and so on. The only two small ones are on krugerrands, where we have agreed to do all that we can,

because there are legal limitations, to stop their importation—the import is very small indeed—and to stop new grants from taxpayers' money for trade missions to South Africa.
Several eminent persons are under consideration for the mission to which I referred. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to add to the list which he has already provided.
I was pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about stopping violence and that all his hon. Friends want the violence to stop. That is not what I thought he was saying, as he appears to support Mr. Tambo, and what Mr. Tambo has said:
The ANC will go to every conceivable length to destroy the apartheid system in South Africa. The escalated armed struggle cannot avoid the use of guns.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman totally and utterly rejects that statement, and I am delighted to hear it.
As regards the talks in New York, the SDI research, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is outside the antiballistic missile treaty. I do not believe that the Americans will negotiate on research. There is no way, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, in which one can verify what research is going on. I think, therefore, that research on both sides of the strategic defence initiative —because a good deal is being carried out on the Soviet side — will continue and will not be bargainable in these talks.
As regards the new possible initiative, the United States put forward proposals at Geneva in the talks on strategic arms reduction for radical reductions in ballistic missile warheads—a cut of nearly 50 per cent. in the current Soviet level. That was put down in the spring. Those proposals, together with a look at the new Gorbachev proposals, will, I believe, give rise to new initiatives before the talks are actually started.
President Reagan has said that he will come to NATO to tell us the results of the talks after they have taken place, so that he will have consulted both before and after them. Regional conflicts will, I believe, be on the agenda, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not easy to find solutions to the middle east conflict.

Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend rub in still further to the Leader of the Opposition the message that, whatever the shortcomings of the South African Government, President Botha has done more to reform and to roll back or contain the Soviet interference on the northern borders than the Governments of South Africa with whom the Labour party was happy to work? Will she confirm that while arms control is essential, the regional problems of Angola, Afghanistan. Cambodia and Nicaragua have been the main cause of the arms race over the past few years, and that it is essential that the Soviet Union should realise this?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the South African Government have taken more steps than were taken by any of their predecessors to start the process of dismantling apartheid. A considerable number of measures have been taken—the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act have been repealed, almost all job reservations have been removed and forced removals have been suspended, the abolition of influx control and pass laws has been recommended to the President by his advisory council, and a common


citizenship for all South Africans has been restored. These are considerable steps towards the process of removing apartheid—a process which will need to continue, and to which the dialogue is directed.
I agree that, as well as arms control, it is vital that some trouble spots in the world, including Afghanistan —which is illegally occupied—central America and other parts of the world, and the presence of Cuban troops in Africa must be discussed at the summit because that are manifestations of the difference of approach between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Dr. David Owen: In the light of the talks with President Reagan, will the Prime Minister give a sign of the British attitude on two specific aspects of the anti-ballistic missile treaty? First, do we believe that the nine technology demonstrations planned as part of the strategic defence initiative programme in the United States are outlined by the treaty? Secondly, do we believe that the Soviet Union is in breach of the ABM treaty because of its radar installations?

The Prime Minister: We believe in what is known as the more conventional interpretation of the treaty, which includes most, although not all, of the testing. There have been suggestions that certain actions are not in compliance with the treaty. These actions probably fall into two kinds — those which may be genuine non-compliance, and those which result from an ambiguity of the wording of the treaty. The treaty provides a way to sort out those problems, because machinery exists, in the standing consultative commission on the treaty, for the United States and the Soviet Union to discuss implementation of the ABM treaty. That appears to be the right place to discuss compliance if there are suggestions that the treaty is not being complied with.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Was there any discussion at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting on helping the developing world by joint ventures such as that between France, Japan and ourselves in Sri Lanka? Would not one way to help the developing world be such joint ventures, and would they not help the expansion of world trade and be an indirect way of helping to improve our balance of trade with Japan?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is very much aware, aid projects, particularly big ones involving capital aid, are frequently joint ventures between two or three countries, each one setting its own aid and trade provisions and making provision for the requisite interest rate. We already have joint projects, greatly to the advantage of projects in developing countries. Sri Lanka is a particular example.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that during her absence the Palace of Westminster witnessed the biggest lobby in its history on overseas aid? Does she not therefore regret that the matter was barely discussed—if it was discussed at all—at the Commonwealth conference, and, still more, that at the United Nations she was unable to confirm that Britain is on course to achieve its meagre target because Britain has slipped in the international league table on account of the reductions since 1979?

The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom aid programme, at 0·33 per cent. of GDP, is close to the OECD average, which is 0·36 per cent. of GDP. To that has to be added the considerable private flows. Taking the official and private flows together, the United Kingdom figure is 1·25 per cent. of GNP, which is well above the United Nations target of 1 per cent.

Mr. Tony Banks: Not enough.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman would like more aid to be provided, and I am the first to understand the reasons why, we have to look at our other expenditure. We cannot spend money over and over again, because the taxpayer is expected to cough up every time. Therefore, I suggest that we should look at what else we can spend less on if we wish to spend more on aid.

Mr. Dennis Walters: Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the talks in New York which touched on the middle east? Does she accept that there is widespread support for her recent effort to break the logjam and make progress? Will she persevere in those efforts, which rightly included the need for a Palestinian voice?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the case for a Palestinian voice is in dispute. It is who should represent that voice that is in dispute. As my hon. Friend knows, we tried to take an initiative and there was a carefully measured statement. We do not accept violence as a means of pursuing a political end. Unfortunately, the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation was not seen by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, for very good reasons. The understanding on which the meeting was set up was not a statement that they were prepared to make. Nevertheless, we must persist in trying to get a settlement of the middle east problem. The United States, Jordan and Prime Minister Peres understand that before negotiations can start there must be a framework of international support. The precise framework is the subject at the moment of many discussions.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Prime Minister is surely aware that to include private flow figures is a smokescreen in relation to the overall aid programme; that the average figures for the OECD disguise the fact that Britain, in terms of aid per head, is 12th among the OECD countries and is giving half that which is given by most Scandinavian countries, and only a quarter of that which is given by Norway. Does the Prime Minister realise that if she, with other Heads of Government, were to achieve the 0·7 per cent. target it could create 2 million jobs in the OECD countries, many of which would come to the United Kingdom? When will she set at least a teeny-weeny target, such as increasing aid from 0·33 to 0·35 per cent. of GNP, so that we can have some indication that aid will go up rather than down?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that we should not also look at private flows. Many Heads of Government are prepared and anxious to get more private capital into those countries because they wish to develop their resources. If the Opposition would like more money to be spent on aid, as many people would, they must not spend money at the same time on other things. If expenditure at home on social security goes up and up, what can be spent on giving help


abroad will not be sufficient. Therefore, the Opposition should look at expenditure at home if they wish to change the balance.

Sir William Clark: I appreciate that the summit meeting dealt mainly with South Africa and apartheid, but can my right hon. Friend say how much time was spent discussing the lack of freedom and the compulsory absence of Opposition parties in newly independent African countries? Does she agree that at future Commonwealth summit meetings this matter should be fully discussed by our partners?

The Prime Minister: In the views that I took up on a number of matters, I was very conscious of the fact that not every Commonwealth country was a perfect example of democracy. I suspect that others were also conscious of that.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the clear political signal that she sent to South Africa with her talk of "tiny measures" shows basically that she believes in the appeasement of the apartheid regime in South Africa, in much the same way as Neville Chamberlain believed in the appeasement of the Nazi regime in Germany?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the apartheid system must come to an end and that through negotiation we are going the right way about bringing it to an end. I do not believe that apartheid will be brought to an end by creating unemployment in hon. Members' constituencies in this country in order to create more unemployment in South Africa.

Hon. Members: But we have it already.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: On the second point about the Commonwealth accord, is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be much support in this country and beyond for the part which she played in getting the agreement that there should be a suspension of violence on all sides in South Africa signed by all Commonwealth leaders?

The Prime Minister: To get full Commonwealth agreement that there should be a suspension of violence when negotiations between the South African Government and representatives of the black community start was a great advance and a significant achievement. I am delighted that we all signed it, because it has helped to achieve a general agreement.

Mr. A. J. Beith: But why, having spent so long getting that agreement, did the Prime Minister see fit to belittle the amount of movement that she had made? In what way did that contribute to the clarity of the signal? Will her reluctance to undertake certain measures, which she eventually overcame in the wider interest, be carried through in the British attitude to the enforcement of the measures?

The Prime Minister: I think that many people there realised not only that sanctions would cause great damage to industries in South Africa but that they could be counterproductive, in that they would induce exactly the attitude that we do not wish to have. They would also have very damaging effects on the African countries which have tried to increase trade with South Africa a great deal in the last year. As some countries pointed out, they, too, have preferential trading arrangements with South Africa which

they do not wish to stop. There was a good deal more reality than would appear from some of the rhetoric. The hon. Gentleman should not lose sight of that.

Mr. Michael Latham: When my right hon. Friend met Mr. Peres, and in subsequent diplomatic exchanges, did she congratulate him on the proposals in his speech to the General Assembly? Is she encouraging him to have direct negotiations with King Hussein?

The Prime Minister: Whether or when those direct negotiations start between the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation and representatives from Israel will depend on whether we can find an international framework within which they can take place. I do not think that it is realistic to expect them to start without that framework. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the sensitivities involved.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How many people in South Africa must be killed by the security forces in a campaign of open ferocity before the right hon. Lady concedes to South Africans the right to defend themselves and to fight to save their lives and their freedoms? Does she not understand that apartheid is the root of violence, that violence is being committed in the name of apartheid, and that until she takes action, on behalf of this country she will be regarded as an ally of South Africa, with blood on her hands?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the apartheid is the root of violence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—No, I do not accept that, and nor do most other people. How, then, could one explain the total and utter violence in Uganda? I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

Mr. John Carlisle: Why do Commonwealth conferences have to conclude with unanimous decisions? What was wrong with us staying in honourable isolation on the principles for which we have already fought? Is my right hon. Friend aware that now that we have taken this tiny step on the escalator of economic sanctions it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get off?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. We obtained a very good agreed result throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. It was more important to achieve that—especially the condemnation of violence and the recognition that economic sanctions would not work—than to issue a separate British statement.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's opposition to international economic action against the racist apartheid regime of South Africa has nothing to do with the 250,000 jobs which she estimates could be affected by such action? After all, she does not care a jot about the 2 million people whom she has put on the dole during the past six years. Is her opposition not precisely to do with the fact that British companies own 40 per cent. of foreign investment in South Africa? Did not Consolidated Gold Fields make £115 million profit last year through paying black miners £21 a week? It is profit, not jobs, that has dictated the right hon. Lady's action.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should be very much aware that industry has been in the forefront of


breaking down apartheid. The standard of living of black Africans in South Africa often exceeds the standard of living of those in other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa is a strong economy, and the gold miners to whom the hon. Gentleman referred refused to strike.

Mr. Nellist: No, they did not. They were beaten into submission.

The Prime Minister: Many black people in South Africa have a high standard of education and culture, and it is rising every day. Therefore, that is not the problem —it is that they do not have a proper right to take part in government. That is what we are trying to rectify.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the realism and courage that she has displayed, not only in Nassau but in the House this afternoon, in defence of an evolutionary, non-violent retreat from the tragedy that apartheid has inflicted on South Africa.
When the other Heads of State in Nassau were attempting to forge the weapon of nuclear condemnation, were they at any stage aware that they were providing the world with the most vivid illustration that it has had in two millennia of the wisdom of the parable of the beam and the mote?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his question. He has made all his points very forcefully indeed.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: In view of the unanimous call of the Commonwealth Heads of State to the South African Government not to execute Daniel Moloise, has the right hon. Lady changed her mind about capital punishment, or is it simply that she says one thing abroad but votes another way in this House?

The Prime Minister: No, I have not changed my mind. Some of the Commonwealth Heads who put their names to that motion have capital punishment in their countries for crimes far less serious than murder—for example, for dealing in drugs.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her efforts to achieve a fair return on British participation in the strategic defence

initiative programme, but may I ask when she expects to obtain an agreement, and when she expects to be able to announce such an agreement?

The Prime Minister: I regret that I cannot answer that, but I shall pursue the matter.

Mr. David Winnick: Was it not an appropriate comment on the Prime Minister's performance at the Nassau conference that a group of the most ardent supporters of the South African regime marched to a number of embassies, and when they reached the British embassy raised three cheers for the right hon. Lady?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that for more than 70 years the African National Congress has tried to avoid violence, but, faced with the violence of the regime and the denial of basic political human rights, it reached the conclusion that there was no alternative? Would it not help matters if the Prime Minister later today listened to the evidence being given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs by Mr. Oliver Tambo?

The Prime Minister: No, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to many other black South Africans who do not want sanctions and utterly deplore violence. I very much regret that Chief Buthelezi is not receiving him, but many of us have seen him.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend recall that prior to the Nassau summit Opposition Members were gloatingly predicting that the thorny question of South Africa would lead to the breakup of the Commonwealth? Has that not proved to be far from true? Has not the agreement signed by every Commonwealth state proved to be a major diplomatic success for this country and this Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it was a major success, both for the content of the accord and for the wisdom of going for the path of negotiation rather than violence, and keeping the Commonwealth together. Many Heads of State were pleased that the question of sanctions did not go any further, especially as some countries have preferential trade treaties with South Africa.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have two other very important statements to follow.

Immigration

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Following the recent exchanges in the House, I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about representations made by right hon. and hon. Members in immigration cases.
Ministers receive large numbers of representations from Members of this House on a wide variety of individual cases. What distinguishes those made on behalf of passengers refused entry at the ports is that they have the effect of securing an immediate change in the action that would otherwise be taken by the immigration service under the relevant statutory provisions. The service is by convention, though not by law, precluded from arranging the passenger's removal until the hon. Member's representations have been received and considered. In the vast majority of cases, the passenger is granted temporary admission. In a small minority of cases, he may be held in detention at the port.
Home Office Ministers received representations on immigration cases about 20 times a week in 1980. Last year, the average was some 70 a week. During the past few weeks there have been 200 representations a week. The increase since 1980 is not the result of some dramatic change in the criteria being employed by immigration officers at the ports in operating the immigration rules. Nor can it be explained by an increase in passenger traffic, which has increased by 25 per cent. while hon. Members representations have increased fivefold taking the year as a whole. What is happening is that hon. Members are being approached and asked to put stops on cases more often than in the past, and hon. Members are agreeing to ask for stops on cases more often than in the past.
That increase has created real administrative problems for the staff at the ports. People are being temporarily admitted who do not qualify as visitors under the rules, and who often spend a considerable time here. The diversion of staff to deal with increasing representations and the case work involved has meant that visitors who are fully qualified find themselves held up and inconvenienced at Heathrow.
Against that background, I believe that it was entirely right for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to bring the position to the notice of the House. I wish to make it clear that my hon. and learned Friend was not at any time sugesting that the law had been broken. In his letter yesterday to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), he described the ways in which the present arrangements are being misused.
It was argued yesterday that my hon. and learned Friend should have given specific examples to the House of the action taken by particular hon. Members. As he explained, he could not have done that without revealing the terms of the letters that they had written to or about individual immigrants and, in two cases, letters written by them to third parties. He is writing today to 23 hon. Members, whose cases are examples of the various problems that we are facing, seeking their permission to make such correspondence public.
There are obvious difficulties, for example when hon. Members make representations on behalf of sponsors of whom they have made no inquiries, and when they arrange for a stop to be placed on a passenger's removal but fail

to follow up the initial telephone call with a confirmatory letter. There is also concern that some hon. Members are willing to take up cases from outside their constituencies, which the constituency Member has chosen not to pursue. Here again, some restatement of the agreed conventions of the House is needed.
Finally, there are one or two cases in which it seems to us that an hon. Member is deliberately facilitating the attempt to secure the temporary admission of a passenger whom he has every reason to believe would not qualify for entry under the rules approved by this House. I am not suggesting that, even where that happens, hon. Members have acted unlawfully; they have not. But if their actions were to be more widely copied, the result could only be the weakening of our system of immigration control, based at the ports of entry. I believe that our present system suits both our geography and our constitution and that we need collectively to consider how it can best continue to operate.
I ask the House to accept that we wish to make a genuine attempt to strike the right balance between the representations of hon. Members and the need for an effective and efficient control without the strains at present imposed on it. We are anxious to discuss these difficulties urgently with those in this House who are mainly concerned, in the hope of working out a sensible answer. In any case, there will not be any changes in our procedures before I have reported to the House.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I apologise for not being in my place when the Home Secretary rose to make his statement.
The House will wish to thank in equal measure both yourself, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), without whom the statement would not have been obtained. Even after the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and the strange letter sent to me yesterday by the Minister of State, the reckless allegations made by the Minister of State remain unsubstantiated.
The Home Secretary appears to be totally confused about the rules relating to visitors. He said that the Minister of State had talked about the right to enter. The Home Secretary talked about the qualification of visitors —he used the phrase "qualify as visitors"—when most would-be visitors have the automatic right to enter unless deprived of it by the Home Secretary. The huge increase in representations from hon. Members to which Ministers have drawn attention proves that the Minister of State is increasingly withdrawing the right of entry from certain categories of visitor.
We totally reject the claim that there has been no change in the way in which the rules are being administered, and we are worried by the Home Secretary referring in his statement to changes in procedure. Will he categorically assure the House that he has no intention of imposing a visa requirement for visitors or limiting the existing rights of hon. Members?
As for alleged "abuses," they are not abuses at all. If an hon. Member was confined to taking up cases the full particulars of which he knew, as mentioned by the Minister of State in his letter, we should none of us be able to take up social security or income tax cases, because we take up those cases to get the facts. That is so in these cases as well. If an hon. Member—again, as requested and apparently required by the Minister of State — were


confined to taking up only the cases of constituents he knew personally, thousands of people in every constituency would never have any cases taken up.
Other allegations made by the Minister relate to relationships between hon. Members. They are matters, if at all, not for the Government, not for the Home Secretary, not for the Minister of State but for you, Mr. Speaker, and the House.
In essence, the allegations that the Government are making add up to a whine about the actions of hon. Members being an inconvenience to the Executive. But one of the most essential functions of an hon. Member is to be an inconvenience to the Executive. If the volume of representations is a burden to the Home Office and its Ministers, let me make it absolutely clear that the administration of the rules of entry is a burden to thousands of our constituents looking forward to visits from relatives. The Home Secretary looks upon those people as inconvenient statistics, but they are human beings with warm family feelings, and they have the same right to have visits as any other of our constituents. Our efforts to help them may be a great deal of trouble to Ministers, but we are determined to go on helping them, and that is a lesson that the Home Secretary had better learn.
On Thursday, the Minister of State twice asserted that some hon. Members were "abusing their right." Yesterday in the exchanges in the House he used the word "abuse" three times. In his letter to me he used the word "abuse" nine times. Today in his statement the Home Secretary did not once use the word "abuse." Instead, he mentioned 23 hon. Members whose cases, he said, were examples of
the problems that we are facing.
We want to know clearly and without equivocation from the Home Secretary whether he alleges that hon. Members have been abusing their position. If he says that there has been abuse, we want the names. We demand the names, because hon. Members have the right to defend themselves against charges made by Ministers in this House. Either the Home Secretary provides the names or he resiles from the accusation. If he resiles from the accusation, the Minister of State should resign.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman must have worked that response out before he heard my statement. He is perfectly correct to say that I did not use the word "abuse". I used the word "misuse". If, with his knowledge of the English language, he wants to make something of that, he is welcome to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman will get the names. My hon. and learned Friend is setting about the task in the right way. He is writing today to 23 hon. Members asking for their consent that the correspondence in question illustrating those problems should be published. That is straightforward and that is what is happening.
On the substance of the matter, I reiterate that the policy has not changed since my hon. and learned Friend has been responsible for it. I will read to the House, because it is the heart of the matter, rule 17 of the immigration rules. It is what immigration officers have administered under the supervision of my hon. and learned Friend and under the supervision of Ministers of State of Labour Governments. It is, in essence, the same rule:
A passenger seeking entry as a visitor, including one coming to stay with relatives or friends, is to be admitted if he satisfies the immigration officer that he is genuinely seeking entry for the

period of the visit as stated by him and that for that period he will maintain and accommodate himself and any dependants, or will, with any dependants, be maintained and accommodated adequately by relatives or friends, without working or recourse to public funds, and can meet the cost of the return or onward journey.
That simple requirement has existed for many years. That is what immigration officers must administer, and there has been no change in it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to visas. As he knows —and again, as has been the practice—the position is kept under continuous review. The comparison that the right hon. Gentleman made with social security benefits was illuminating. We are all the time asking as constituency Members, for example, that benefit for one or other of our constituents should be reconsidered or increased. But we do not expect the benefit automatically to be increased while our representations are being considered.
What, so far as I know, makes this facility unique is that there is a covention— which the right hon. Gentleman supports and wishes to maintain, as I do — that automatically a stop is placed and the action that would otherwise be taken is suspended. The problem is now caused partly by the increasing number of arrivals and partly by the increase in the number of representations.
It is not a matter of inconvenience to the Home Office or of administrative inconvenience. [Interruption.] The principal consequence is that under the rule to which I referred people who should not be allowed entry are allowed in. That is not what Parliament intended, and we should consider carefully among ourselves how this facility, which we wish to preserve, is to be preserved.

Mr. Kaufman: Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the right hon. Gentleman again at the end.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many residents here wishing to invite relatives to spend a holiday with them would be prepared to give a bond, to be produced at a point of entry, which would prevent all the hassle that their relatives undergo and would be far better than the farcial situation when an hon. Member intervenes, there is a stop and the Home Office takes six to eight weeks to investigate the case, by which time the relative has returned home, having spent his holiday here, with a great deal of bureaucratic time having been wasted?

Mr. Hurd: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. A change in the law would, I think, be required to accommodate his suggestion, which would put a premium on the possession of resources. Let us consider it.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the Home Secretary accept that the strength of family ties, which his party very much favours, means that families that wish to receive visitors from abroad are represented in many constituencies, and that it is inevitable that our constituents will bring cases to our attention where there have been difficulties?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is inevitable that an hon. Member may have to act urgently to prevent a visitor being sent back without knowing the full facts of the case at that point? Does he agree that one


can ascertain the details and make proper representations only after a stop has been put on a constituent's relative, and he has, perhaps, been sent back to his home country?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is often a great deal of bewilderment on the part of both the visitor and the family? In many instances the visitor may not be able to understand why he has been prevented from making an ordinary visit to his family, and many families offer the very bond that his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) suggested. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that many Liberal Members are concerned that they are having to spend a great deal of time working on cases where the visitor should never have been stopped from entering Britain in the first place?

Mr. Hurd: Of course it is right that there are special cases and peculiar circumstances. That is why we accept that right hon. and hon. Members have a right and a duty to make representations where they know of such cases. That is what it is all about. The trouble is that there are too many cases where, for example, a stop is imposed because a Member of Parliament has made a telephone call, which is not followed by later representations. That is one of the larger examples of what is going wrong. It is because we want to preserve the facility that right hon. and hon. Members enjoy that we are anxious to overcome the strains that its misuse is putting on the system as a whole.

Mr. William Shelton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I for one have always experienced a certain disquiet when exercising this facility? It is impossible, through a letter or telephone call to the constituent, in any way to judge the merits of the case. Nevertheless, in the present circumstances I always feel obliged to telephone the Department of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who, in my view, does a difficult job extraordinarily well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I find that his Department is most helpful when I telephone to ask its officials to impose a stop. I would welcome some guidance on when we should or should not exercise this difficult facility.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I think that he is right. On reflection, right hon. and hon. Members will accept that we are discussing a unique facility for Members and that with it goes responsibility for the way in which it is exercised. I agree that it is sensible that we should discuss together, in whatever way seems sensible to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are faced with this problem, exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) is talking about, which is how the facility is to be preserved and how the responsibility which Members have in exercising it is to be defined.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Is the Home Secretary aware that the matter is far more complicated than he seems to understand? He is a new Home Secretary and I for one would be prepared to talk to him seriously on the issue and even to lighten the burden of the Minister of State. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that those of us who represent large immigrant communities, or erstwhile immigrant communities, are bound to find that certain of the families receive visitors. One example is the Sikhs in my constituency. Through the problems in

India, for example, a number of young people have come in to Britain from India. That will have given rise inevitably to greater surveillance at the port of entry and will have placed a greater strain on the immigration officers, who are complaining bitterly of a shortage of staff and the way in which they have to treat passengers at the port of entry. All that has to be considered.
I should like to involve you to some extent, Mr. Speaker, and put it in the mind of the Home Secretary that it has always been traditional in the House of Commons that, if a constituent claims that his Member has failed or refused to act for him, it is an elementary fact that any hon. Member is qualified to act for him. There are only a few occasions when I have had so to act but occasionally I do, and I find mostly that Tory Members are pleased that I do so when they are absent on holiday or for other reasons. I shall continue so to act according to the tradition of the House.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has a particularly heavy responsibility in this area and I am sure that he always discharges it with great care. I take what he has to say especially seriously. I emphasise that there has not been any change of policy or of the rules. However, a problem is being created and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need to discuss the issue carefully, in whatever way is most orderly, to find a way of easing the strain. I shall put the matter into perspective by saying that 99 per cent. of all passengers arriving in this country from the subcontinent last year were admitted without difficulty of any kind.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by misusing the spirit of the regulations, hon. Members do a great disservice to immigrant communities?

Ms. Clare Short: Whose spirit?

Mr. Soames: Would my right hon. Friend agree also that if this state of affairs continues, we shall have no option but to put visas on at the point of departure?

Mr. Hurd: I have already answered a question about visas. I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the problems and one of the symptoms of strain in the machine is that visitors who are wholly entitled under the rule that I have read to come into Britain on a visit are held up and inconvenienced, especially at terminal 3 at Heathrow, because of the increasing number of people who are not so entitled but who present themselves.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Home Secretary aware that one of the greatest abuses to which Asian and black people in Britian take exception is that they and their relatives are interrogated for many hours while white Americans who come over from the United States are allowed through immigration control, with virtually no difficulty whatsoever? This creates enormous problems in places such as Birmingham and elsewhere, which adds to the festering situation.
What does the right hon. Gentleman expect Members to do when they are knocked up in the middle of the night to find that someone, perhaps soaked to the skin, has come from Heathrow upon being told by an immigration officer, "Unless we hear from your MP by early in the morning, your elderly father will be sent back home"? Is that not an outrage to the integrity of our affairs? Does the right hon.


Gentleman expect hon. Members to be sitting at home every day and every week, including weekends and holidays, to placate the demands of the immigration service as required by Home Office Ministers?

Mr. Hurd: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in these matters, should place that sort of imputation on the way in which immigration officers do their job. Where there are specific complaints of maltreatment of something approaching that, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should take them up. I know from my own postbag and from the letters which I am asked to sign of the great care that the immigration service and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and officials in the Home Office devote to investigating all such allegations and dealing with them faithfully.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will find widespread support among the minority communities for any attempt to stamp out abuses of the immigration system? The minority communities have suffered quite enough in the past from those who have been only too willing to encourage them to attempt to deceive immigration authorities, and they have usually paid the penalty. Is he further aware that they will not thank anyone who, through his abuse of the system, further restricts the rights of those of us who seek to help visitors who are refused entry and who we believe sincerely are genuine?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right on both counts. It is crucial for good race relations in Britain that the immigration system we operate should be seen to be fair. I think that the whole House will agree with that. It would not be a good thing if the system were seen to be weak or open to misuse, and that is the problem.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the Home Secretary aware that it may be that those who are abusing the system are some of the immigration officers themselves? How can he have any confidence in some of his immigration officers when he hears, for example, that a young man from India has come to Britain as he wishes to attend his sister's wedding in Scotland, that she is a British subject who is marrying a British subject and that they are to live in a house that is owned by a British subject, and yet there is difficulty in allowing that young man to come for a week to attend the wedding? Can he have any confidence in immigration officers when difficulties arise in a case such as that?

Mr. Hurd: I have read to the House the rule governing visits and the House can judge whether that rule is arbitrary, unfair or tyrannical. I do not think it is, and it has been there for a long time. Immigration officers are being criticised in the House. They do a remarkably difficult job under increasing strain—it is the strain we are talking about—and they do it with great patience and responsibility. I am surprised that the debate should have taken this turn, because the criticisms made are unjustified.

Mr. Michael Mates: How much has this misuse of privileges by a few Members of Parliament cost the taxpayer?

Mr. Hurd: The law provides that if a case drags on beyond two months, the cost of returning the person concerned to the country of origin ceases to be the responsibility of the airline and becomes the responsibility of the taxpayer. As the work load that we are discussing increases, it becomes more and more difficult to deal with every case in two months. We estimate that the cost to the taxpayer this year arising from these strains is likely to be about £1 million.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Home Secretary understand that the strains to which he refers are caused by a thoroughly inefficient system that is too often operated without kindness, compassion or courtesy, and that it leaves genuine visitors in long queues waiting for interpreters and sometimes locked up for the night, or longer? In many cases, it is unfair to blame individual immigration officers because there are not enough of them, but to blame Members of Parliament who are trying to help their constituents in this awful system is like blaming doctors for death or disease.

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. and learned Gentleman studies the categories and the ways in which we believe that the system of Members' representations is being misused, then, because he is a fair-minded man, he will be forced to the conclusion that this is one element, though not the only element, in the strain that I am talking about. That strain does a disservice not mainly to the administrators, but to the genuine visitor who is qualified to enter and to the whole system that we are trying to preserve.

Mr. Derek Spencer: I have 18,000 constituents who might want to make use of this service. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not the function of any hon. Member to act as judge and jury in deciding whether or not an individual should be allowed entry, but only to make responsible and proper representations to the Home Office?

Mr. Hurd: That is right. That is the heart of the matter.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: It is quite clear from what the Home Secretary has said that he is straining at a gnat. Is he aware that last Thursday in the House, the Minister of State said that 1 million Commonwealth and Pakistani people had been allowed into the country last year and that he had representations during 1980 in only 1,000 cases and was expecting representations from Members in 4,500 cases this year? In other words, 1,000 was less than 0·01 per cent. If it is 4,500 this year, it will be less than 0·05 per cent. The Minister has referred to the rule. I have been in discussion with the Minister of State since last Friday—five days—about a black man whose brother is a British citizen. That British citizen has signed a statement, which I have here, with the Bangladesh High Commissioner saying he will keep, look after and be responsible for him and will see that he returns. That man has been refused entry into the country, kept on remand at public expense, and questioned during those five days. Can the Home Secretary look into that case? It constitutes a disgusting state of affairs, and I am very angry about it. It is one of the worst cases I have had for some years and it arises only because the man is black.

Mr. Hurd: I cannot comment on the hon. Member's individual case, but he is perfectly entitled to put it. There is no dispute about that. I will give again the figures which


relate to his first point. Representations by Members in port refusal cases have grown from about 1,000 a year in 1980, 1981 and 1982 to 3,532 last year. Up to 22 October this year the total was about 5,000. That is the fivefold increase I was talking about, and that is what is creating the strains. In view of the general conclusion made by the hon. Member, I should add that the proportion of refusals to entry has remained basically static during this time. It is not true that immigration officers are turning away or refusing entry to a larger proportion of people.

Mr. W. Benyon: I am afraid my right hon. Friend is deluding himself if he thinks the situation will get any better. Would it not be better to get rid of all this nonsense by considering a visa scheme?

Mr. Hurd: As I have said, there are problems about any moves towards visas. I have said, and I chose my words carefully, that the matter of visa regimes is kept under continual review.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Home Secretary reconsider the answer that he gave in reply to the suggestion that there should be a bond system? Does he accept that if he were sympathetically to consider such an idea, he would be extending the bail system, which is totally unacceptable in matters of immigration? Secondly, I have no doubt that the whole House accepts that the system is under tremendous strain. In this get together of hon. Members to consider suggestions, will the Home Secretary acknowledge and assure the House that he will double the staff in the Private Office? If the system is under strain, surely it is a matter of the number of people employed.

Mr. Hurd: It is partly that, but primarily that under the misuse of the system quite large numbers — [HON. MEMBERS: "What misuse?"] "Misuse" is the word that I have used for the past half hour. One consequence of misuse of the system is that large numbers of people, whom Parliament did not intend under the immigration laws to be admitted as visitors, are being admitted as visitors.

Mr. John Whitfield: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this House, having listened to a characteristically hypocritical statement from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would rephrase that and withdraw the word "hypocritical."

Mr. Whitfield: I withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker, and say the misleading statement by the right hon. Member for Gorton—Members would do well to read the excellent letter that the Secretary of State wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and to read the six forms of abuse that the Minister of State has listed in that letter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not read them all out.

Mr. Whitfield: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members should read that letter, which is in the Library, and acquaint themselves with the six forms of abuse which definitely exist. I have a lot of knowledge of those six forms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the official Opposition are in danger of becoming the party that supports illegal immigration just as they support racial violence in our inner city areas?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Who is he?

Mr. Hurd: I do not entirely go along with all my hon. Friend's criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman slightly misinterpreted the mood of the House. This is a serious problem which affects the whole House. I hope we can continue this debate with the thought that there is a real problem. It is not one that we invented. The strain is real and is being felt increasingly on the ground. As my hon. Friend said, it may get worse. I am deeply worried about it. I hope that between us we can find a parliamentary way in which this issue can be sensibly discussed and the right way found to maintain a facility to which the House attaches great importance.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary accept that a system that allows 5,000 representations so far this year to be made to Members of Parliament evidently needs review as to the conventions that apply not only to Members of Parliament but to the rules? When discussing these matters with those of us who are ready to meet him will the Home Secretary consider the possibility of amending rule 17?

Mr. Hurd: I think that rule 17, which I read to the House, is a sane and thoughtful piece of work. I do not see defects in it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the rest of his remarks.

Mr. Michael Morris: As one who has lived and worked in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, may I say, with respect to these complicated cases, that I have the utmost confidence in my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington). I believe that the decision to require Sri Lankan visitors to have visas is right. That system is working well. Bangladesh leaders in Northampton and I believe that a simpler system is needed, whereby people can come to Britain on holiday' for three or four weeks. I should be more than happy to work with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to find a way around this problem.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Home Secretary admit that the Minister of State lost his temper and made false allegations and that that is the cause of the whole problem? The Minister of State should apologise to the House.
It is understandable that the Home Secretary does not understand the operation of immigration control. He told my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that his story about what happened in Scotland was not typical, but he was wrong. These problems for our constituents occur every week. Genuine family members come here to visit their relations but they are turned away. Their only way in is by ringing their Member of Parliament. This causes an enormous amount— [HON. MEMBERS: "Their Member of Parliament— not you."] Let me say to those Conservative Members who shout that one of the reasons why Opposition Members are troubled by people who do not live in their constituencies is that they are telephoned by people who say, "My MP is racist and will not represent me."

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us keep the temperature down.

Ms. Short: I believe that Labour Members should compile a list of the people who frequently approach them. The origin of this problem is the fact that too many genuine visitors are refused entry. If they were not refused entry, there would be no need for Members of Parliament, the Minister and the visitors' families to be troubled, and everyone would be happier. That is the solution.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is ignoring the fact that the proportion of refusals is no higher than it used to be. These facts are clearly established, but they do not suit the hon. Lady's doctrine. She does not do herself or her constituents any service by protesting so vehemently and passionately about matters — the views of other hon. Members—of which she cannot have much knowledge.
On the hon. Lady's first point, I think that it would be a poor day if a Minister could not come to the House at Question Time to explain something and volunteer views on a matter that was causing all of us genuine concern. That is what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State did, and I think that he would have been wrong not to do so.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ability of Members of Parliament to make representations to the Home Secretary is a particular privilege and that, if that privilege is abused, it will damage us all? Is my right hon. Friend aware that on one occasion, when I refused to assist a person whom I thought was trying to obtain immigration clearance improperly, I was clearly told, "That does not matter. I can ring up a certain right hon. Member and he will get me clearance without any questions."? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it must be possible for hon. Members of good will on both sides of the House to agree to keep to a convention that assists us all?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has neatly encapsulated what I was trying to say.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Home Secretary agree that, so long as visitors who are refused entry to Britain are denied any right of appeal, the rights of Members of Parliament to stop removal and have a review of the immigration officer's decision are of great importance? Does he also agree that the serious allegations by the Minister of State are clearly a smokescreen behind which the Government are preparing to introduce a visa requirement for citizens of the new Commonwealth and Pakistan who wish to visit Britain in the future? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking, therefore, that no such visa requirement will be introduced without the clear approval of the House, in order to avoid the embarrassment that the Government might incur by introducing visa requirements while the House is not sitting next week? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear assurance that, if visa requirements are introduced, no impediment will be put in the way of the children of British citizens to prevent them from coming here and, if refused entry, from exercising their right of appeal here?

Mr. Hurd: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there will be no change in the visa regimes next week while the House is prorogued. The hon. Gentleman's first point was not accurate. Parliament has granted a right of appeal, but—

Mr. Madden: Not here.

Mr. Hurd: Exactly; a right of appeal in the country of origin. By using the facilities about which we are talking, some hon. Members are prescribing something that Parliament has not prescribed—in effect, the right of someone to stay here while his case is looked at. That is not what Parliament intended.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Is not the real cause of concern the fact that there are no automatic checks to ascertain that visitors, including more than 900,000 last year from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan, leave the country? Will my right hon. Friend and the Home Office investigate the possibility of using modern technology and computer science to ensure that these checks are made automatically?

Mr. Hurd: As my hon. Friend knows, there are problems. That point is one that we must consider.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the current position is totally unacceptable to a civilised country and that it is getting worse? Does he know that this month I have had six cases, with another one today, concerning people kept in detention? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that Mr. Patel was kept in detention for three weeks and that it took me 12 days to get any information out of the Home Office? I should have thought that even a murderer would be told why he had lost his liberty. I was even told that I could not get a reply because the appropriate Minister was at the Conservative party conference and I would have to wait until he returned.
Is it true that there is a shortage of staff at the ports and that untrained personnel are manning the immigration desks? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the distress that this is causing and the burden that this is imposing on constituency Members of Parliament — perhaps not constituencies like the right hon. Gentleman's but the constituencies of my colleagues—who must cope with the system's inadequacies?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the policy which has been pursued for many years is to minimise detention—to use detention only when there are serious reasons for supposing, for example, that a person might abscond. The proportion of people refused entry who are then detained has been decreasing while the proportion of those who are granted temporary admission has been increasing. Between 1977 and 1984 the percentage of those refused entry and then granted temporary admission has increased as a percentage of all passengers refused entry from 22 per cent. to 47 per cent.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is it not a fact that the Home Office is anxious that elderly parents and close relatives of people from overseas who are living in this country should be able to visit their loved ones? Is it not also a fact that there has been a surge of young people coming to Britain as holiday visitors, that many of them seek to change the status of their visit once they are here and that many of them disappear into the woodwork?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has characteristically stated both wings of the problem, which can only be resolved by having a sensible rule. I am glad that I started by reading out to the House rule 17. I think it is a sensible rule.

Mr. Kaufman: The Home Secretary has demonstrated a misunderstanding of what concerns Opposition Members. In dealing with the analogy of a person whose Member of Parliament seeks to obtain for him or her an increase in social security benefit, he says that the social security benefit is not increased while the application by the Member of Parliament is being considered. When the Member of Parliament's application is being considered, the social security benefit is not removed. The person whould be removed from the country unless the hon. Member made the application. That is the whole basis of the stop procedure.
The Home Secretary said that he wishes to discuss these matters with the hon. Members concerned. If he is willing to have discussions now, why did the Minister of State not ask for discussions before making his reckless allegations to the House last Thursday? Throughout the exchanges today the Home Secretary has consistently used the word "misuse" and consistently withdrawn from the word "abuse" which was used by his hon. and learned Friend. Does the Home Secretary confirm and endorse the word "abuse" as used by the Minister of State? If he does, we want the names of the hon. Members who are said to be conducting the abuse. Unless he comes clean on this, it is he, his hon. and learned Friend and the Prime Minister who are guilty of an abuse of the House.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is working himself up again. He will get the names. That is clear from my statement and from the action that my hon. and learned Friend has taken today. I endorse every word of the letter that my hon. and learned Friend wrote to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kaufman: "Abuse"?

Mr. Hurd: If the right hon. Gentleman had contained his passion long enough to read to the end of that letter, he would have seen that my hon. and learned Friend was suggesting discussions.

Mr. Kaufman: Not last Thursday.

Mr. Hurd: That was one of the final points in the letter that he wrote yesterday. That is the point that I have been emphasising today and on which I should like to end.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I can see that he does not want this done through the usual channels because he thinks that procedure is too narrow. I have some sympathy with that view. We need to work out among ourselves a way in which the stop facility—which I am not trying to abolish, but which I am trying to bring within proportions—will work. I am trying to find a way in which we can discuss it on a parliamentary basis and make it work.

Mr. Speaker: Statement, Mr. Stanley.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take the points of order after the statement. I can anticipate what the points of order are likely to be about.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: No, you cannot.

Mr. Speaker: I will take the points of order afterwards, as is my usual practice.

Mr. Faulds: No, this point of order has to do with this business.

Mr. Speaker: I will take it afterwards. Later—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall, Sir, that I was the Member—the hon. Member—[Laughter.] I wish that you could all say that about yourselves—to whom the original accusation was made that certain hon. Members had abused the immigration procedures. Yet I have listened to many hon. Members called to ask questions who have no concern with the immigration problem, including an hon. Member from some obscure point in the north of Scotland whose only connection with immigration could be occasional English visitors. The advice which is always available at your elbow and which is supposed to be totally impartial saw fit not to let you sight me on this matter. I think that it would be advisable—I say this, Sir, with the deep affection in which I hold you—to look again at the sense and rationality of postponing points of order which are relevant to the business under way until after other bits of business, which totally removes the relevance of the point of order. This is a major matter which should be re-examined, since I believe, Sir, it is a new development under your admirable Speakership.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: May I take one at a time? I sighted the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) earlier this afternoon and I sighted him yesterday. With the best will in the world, I cannot call every hon. Member every day. The hon. Member was called yesterday and I think that that was fair enough.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that my point of order has not lost its relevance because of any delay. I apologise for straining the patience of the House, but an important side issue has emerged from the exchanges about the immigration rules. It has been revealed that the Minister of State, Home Office, has written to 23 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House asking for their permission to make public the correspondence that has passed between them and him. I assume that the correspondence will be made public by publication in Hansard or by copies being placed in the Library. However, the correspondence between an hon. Member and a Minister must be on the basis of confidentiality between the hon. Member and his constituent. No hon. Member has a right to reveal correspondence unless he has the explicit permission of the constituent to whom the correspondence refers.
Could I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very dangerous practice for Ministers of the Crown of arty Government to come to the House and make an accusation about Members abusing their position and then defend that accusation by challenging them, on the following day, to allow him to publish the correspondence? I am glad that the Leader of the House has remained in his place, because this is a very serious intrusion into the way in which Members of Parliament carry out their work on behalf of their constituents.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is really a point of order for me, but, as I understand it, what the Secretary of State said was that he would seek the permission of those hon. Members to whom he had written to publish the correspondence. That is what I understood him to say.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are in an invidious position when it comes to the statement on immigration. My particular locality of north Bedfordshire has the highest immigrant population in the United Kingdom—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this not sound like an extension of Question Time?

Mr. Skeet: Not entirely, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.] I am simply saying this, Mr. Speaker, and I want your guidance on it. When matters of this prominence come up and it is necessary for the Government possibly to bring in some code where they will have consultation with various Members — not only the 23 who have been nominated today—I think that it is only right that those Members who come from areas where there is a lot of evidence should have the opportunity to take part in that debate, which was referred to in the national press.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister, in the exchange over the immigration rules, repeated once more the insinuation and the allegation that a number of Members of Parliament have been acting improperly, and he now confirms that he has written to 23 of them. Presumably he will ensure that the names of those 23 will appear in The Daily Telegraph tomorrow. The issue, however, is that the Minister made a series of wholly unsubstantiated allegations against individual Members. He has failed to support those allegations with any detailed argument whatever this afternoon—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Corbyn: The point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is this. Should not the Minister withdraw those allegations in their entirety? He is casting a slur on the character of individual Members of the House in the matter of the operation of the immigration laws.
The second point, Mr. Speaker, on which I look to you for guidance, is that the Minister is suggesting that he will write to those 23 and possibly seek discussions with them. Is that not a matter for the whole House, for public debate, rather than for private discussion among Members representing areas with a high proportion of immigrant people who are suffering disgracefully under the immigration laws?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for any statements or allegations that are made by any Member in the House, as long as they are in order.

Cyprus Service Men (Trial)

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outcome of the trial concluded yesterday of eight service men under the Official Secrets Acts.
On 3 February 1984 a senior aircraftsman of 9 Signal Regiment based in Cyprus failed to complete unit clearance procedures prior to being posted back to the United Kingdom. On 6 February he was interviewed by the deputy unit security officer of the regiment. From this interview it appeared that a breach of security had occurred and the senior aircraftsman was arrested. His case was referred to the RAF provost and security service in Cyprus. Subsequently, the Army special investigations branch was also brought in since it appeared that soldiers as well as RAF personnel were involved. As is the standard procedure where a breach of the Offical Secrets Acts may have occurred, the Ministry of Defence security authorities brought the matter to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions during the course of their investigation.
On 15 March 1984, in view of the seriousness of the alleged breaches of security, the Director asked the Metropolitan police special branch to assume responsibility for the conduct of the investigation and in the light of its investigation he considered that the evidence justified prosecutions under the Official Secrets Acts. On 11 April the Attorney General consented to the prosecution of seven service men, who were charged on 13 April. The Attorney General subsequently consented to the prosecution of an eighth service man, who was charged on 8 June 1984.
As the House is aware, the service men charged have all been acquitted. Their future in the services will be determined in accordance with normal service regulations. These afford a right of appeal to the service boards, which include Ministers, before any final decision on their future is taken.
As the House is aware, the Security Commission reports to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As my right hon. Friend stated to the House earlier today, she decided in June 1984 that, given the gravity of the apparent breaches of security and the length of time the trial proceedings would be likely to take, it would be right to make an immediate reference to the Security Commission. The reference was not announced at the time, so as not in any way to prejudice the course of justice. In the light of the acquittals, my right hon. Friend will consult the chairman of the Security Commission and report to the House in due course.
The House will wish to know of the steps that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has taken in the light of what has occurred. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was first informed of the possibility of a breach of security on 10 February 1984. In the light of further information he decided that there should be an investigation of the security arrangements and procedures in 9 Signal Regiment which was to be led by the security service. In parallel with this investigation my right hon. Friend instructed that further investigations should be carried out into security procedures in all other static communications units of all three services which handle sensitive traffic. These security investigations produced a large number of detailed recommendations for


enhancing security at the units concerned. Most of them have been accepted, and either have been or are being implemented.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend has decided that there should be an independent inquiry into the way in which the service police carried out their investigations of the eight men originally accused. Mr. David Calcutt, QC, has agreed to conduct this inquiry and to complete it as quickly as is practical. He will start work next week. His terms of reference will be as follows:
To inquire into the question of whether the investigations carried out by the Royal Air Force's provost marshal branch and the Army's special investigation branch into matters which formed the substance of charges subsequently laid under the Official Secrets Acts against SAC Geoffrey Jones, SAC Adam Lightowler, SAC Wayne Kriehn, SAC Christopher Payne, SAC Gwynn Owen, Lance Corporal Anthony Glass, Signalman Martin Tuffy, and Signalman David Hardman were carried out in accordance with lawful and proper procedures; to report with all practicable speed; and to make recommendations as to any relevant procedure.
Subject to the usual security considerations, it is my right hon. Friend's intention that Mr. Calcutt's report will be published.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Opposition are relieved that, on this occasion at least, the Ministry of Defence has reacted to the anger and outrage expressed on both sides of the House and outside at the revelations during the spy trial at the Old Bailey and in particular at the way in which confessions were extracted from defendants who were subsequently acquitted by a jury.
The Minister has announced the setting up of an inquiry and we welcome that. We shall scrutinise its powers and await its conclusions with interest. I remind the Minister and the House that this is the third occasion in little more than a year when prosecutions have been brought under the Official Secrets Acts emanating from activities within the Ministry of Defence and that on each occasion an Old Bailey jury has acquitted the defendants, and I remind the Minister that in this case the jury also rejected confessions extracted from the accused by investigators and interrogators at the Ministry of Defence.
Some fundamental questions remain which cannot be dealt with by the inquiry. In effect, they relate to ministerial responsibility within the Department for the prosecutions and also responsibility to the House. Who on earth at the Ministry of Defence was responsible for putting together a case which turned out to be so full of holes and based to a considerable extent on confessions extracted by means at best dubious and at worst barbaric?
Secondly, were the Minister and the Secretary of State at any time informed in their capacity as Ministers of the course of the investigations? Were they told about the interrogations? Did they know what was going on? Were they told the length of time for which the accused were interrogated and how long many of them were incarcerated? What were Ministers told about the inquiries while those inquiries were going on? Are we to believe that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, beavering away at his desk churning out all the answers for which he is famous, and the Secretary of State knew nothing whatever about the conduct of those investigations and interrogations? The House deserves to know exactly how much they knew about what was going on. Did no alarm bells ring when in a previous case another Cyprus service man was acquitted at the Old Bailey?
Thirdly, will the Minister explain the third paragraph of his statement, relating to the future of the service men involved? Will they have to go through another harrowing experience in terms of military discipline and procedures or are the Government prepared to accept the jury's verdict and to allow those service men to continue with their careers as they were doing before they were interrupted?
What thought has been given to compensation for the service men and for their families, who have also suffered, as those men's careers have clearly been blighted?
Finally, the Minister referred to the Security Commission. Has the Security Commission now cleared the security arrangements at that establishment in Cyprus?

Mr. Stanley: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has welcomed the setting up of the inquiry to be carried out by Mr. Calcutt. With regard to the conduct of the service police investigators, I suggest it would be much more proper to await the outcome of Mr. Calcutt's investigations and detailed inquiry before leaping to any conclusions on that. As for the responsibility for putting the case together, the decision to prosecute lies entirely with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the handling of the case is his responsibility.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether Ministers were informed in detail about the questioning of those facing the accusations. The answer is that they were not. The established procedure in the Department is that judges' rules apply, and the central issue that Mr. Calcutt will be examining is whether those conducting the questioning did so in conformity with judges' rules.
As for the future of the service men involved, I made it clear in my statement that they will have every opportunity to be considered within the service regulations. It goes without saying that the Department fully accepts the verdict on the allegations which were subject to the judicial proceedings in relation to the Official Secrets Acts. It also made it clear that the service men have a right of appeal to service boards on which Ministers sit. Compensation is not and never has been available in such cases.
The right hon. Gentleman's question about the Security Commission is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to address it to her.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the case of my constituent, Senior Aircraftsman Wayne Kriehn, the anger and bitterness of the young man's parents is deep and it is shared by many who know the boy in question? Does my right hon. Friend accept that in May 1984 I wrote to him passing on information given to me by the boy's parents that the confession had been extorted by interrogation in solitary confinement? Does he further accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and I wrote to the Secretary of State in August 1984 detailing our wider concern in the light of further talks with two of the prisoners? Given that background, does my right hon. Friend feel that there is a lesson to be learnt with regard to the continuing role of the services and the Ministry of Defence in looking after the welfare of service men awaiting trial in civil proceedings?
Looking to the future, will my right hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming about the opportunities now open to a man such as my constituent Wayne Kriehn, whom the


defending solicitor described as a high flier? Having put the matter to a civil court in preference to a court martial, it seems reasonable not to seek to reverse the process and attempt to try the people involved again.

Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of trying the individuals concerned in any other way in relation to the Official Secrets Acts. As for any other matters, I assure my hon. Friend that there is no contemplation of any further proceedings on the evidence available to us at the moment.
We are, of course, aware of the earlier correspondence and my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged that he was expressing the particular concerns that he described, but I am sure that he too will wish to await the conclusions of Mr. Calcutt's inquiry before reaching any final conclusion as to the validity of the complaints that were put to him.
On the wider policy issue of the continuing role of the services in being responsible for service men facing procedures in civilian courts, as the service men remain members of the services during that period I suggest that it is right that they should remain within a service environment and that the services should remain responsible for them. The crucial requirement is that they be afforded the same rights and protection as civilians in the same situation, and that is the object of the policy.

Mr. James Wallace: There was no reference in the Minister's statement to any assistance having been sought from the Cypriot police authorities. Will the Minister explain why that was so? Is it true that the prosecution went ahead without any effort being made to ascertain whether any independent corroboration of the confessions was available in Cyprus? Secondly, is the Minister satisfied that no secrets have been lost in relation to the base in Cyprus, and does he accept that, even if he is satisfied, the House cannot be satisfied until there is parliamentary scrutiny of the security services?

Mr. Stanley: On the last point—this is as far as I can go—at the time of the original investigations it was the clear view of the Ministry of Defence security authorities that there was a real likelihood of a serious breach of security having occurred. That was the basis of the relevant papers being passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The decision to prosecute is, of course, entirely a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions in consultation with the Attorney-General and they were afforded full access to all the relevant information.
I cannot elaborate on the involvement of other agencies, but the hon. Member can be certain that all reasonable steps were taken to see whether there was any additional evidence in relation to the confessions made by the men.

Sir Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main point is whether the alleged statements made by the defendants were voluntary? The jury's verdict says one of two things—that the jury was not satisfied that the statements were voluntary or that it was not satisfied beyond doubt that the statements were voluntary. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now considerable public anxiety about this issue and that the manner in which he proposes to resolve this matter by setting up an inquiry is the most effective way of dealing with this problem?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. He has rightly addressed the nub of the case. He will understand that it would be improper for me to comment on how the jury arrived at their conclusions. I should like warmly to endorse his remarks about the inquiry we are setting up. It must be the correct response to the allegations which have been made. I am certain that Mr. Calcutt's inquiry will produce a proper and independent view of the validity of those allegations.

Mr. John Morris: What will Mr. David Calcutt's powers be when conducting the inquiry? Will he be confined to examining what happened in the five weeks between 6 February 1984 and 15 March 1984 when the Metropolitan police took responsibility for the case? Will he inquire into whether full details of the incarceration and the length of the interrogation were made available to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General when the decision to prosecute was taken?

Mr. Stanley: When the right hon. and learned Member examines the terms of reference closely, he will see—

Mr. John Morris: The powers.

Mr. Stanley: Yes. Mr. Calcutt's powers initially rest on the terms of reference. They are widely drawn. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that this is a non-statutory inquiry. Mr. Calcutt will of course have the full support of the Law Officers and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that he has access to all the available information.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the issue here is not the mere fact of the acquittals? It would be wrong to suggest that a criminal trial is unsuccessful simply because there is an acquittal. If the speculation that has appeared in today's quality press is true, and is substantiated, it means that people such as my constituent Mr. Geoffrey Jones have been placed in great jeopardy for a long time on the basis of confessions which are not just marginally inadmissible but wholly unsubstantiated. If Mr. Calcutt's inquiry shows that that was the quality of the confessions extracted, the House will expect an assurance that such a set of events can never be repeated.

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that if the allegations should be substantiated by Mr. Calcutt's inquiry, that will be a serious matter. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, which I am sure is shared on both sides of the House. If such matters were proved, we would have to take all possible steps to ensure that there was no repetition of the circumstances.
I should like to repeat what I said previously: I am sure that the House would not wish to reach any conclusion until both sides of the case have been heard and the allegations have for the first time been subjected to detailed independent scrutiny.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: A new independent prosecuting service will shortly take over from the police, with the power to institute prosecutions in court in England and Wales. Will that new procedure apply to the police in the RAF, the Army and the Royal Navy? Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that those young RAF technicians, working at an outstation of GCHQ, were not members of a trade union?

Mr. Stanley: The independent prosecution service will not impinge on proceedings relating to the armed services. I can assure the right hon. Member that, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, we are bound to produce codes of guidance about questioning, and that is relevant to the case we are discussing. Those codes will ensure that our procedures conform with those adopted in civilian courts. We regard that as an essential policy requirement.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those proceedings were instituted in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Attorney General and that the proper legal processes were followed? Will my right hon. Friend squash the nonsensical suggestion that those proceedings should never have been brought?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that that is the case as far as my Department is concerned. I should like to make it clear that in matters such as this, where there is an alleged serious breach of the Official Secrets Acts, there is an obligation on my Department to submit the relevant papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is not a matter where we have discretion, and the papers automatically go to the Director of Public Prosecutions in such cases in accordance with the rules which have been laid down.

Mr. Stuart Bell: In reference to the last question, does the Minister agree that the inquiry should be broadened to include the decision-making process? The Minister told the House that the decision originated with the Air Force provost marshal. It then went to the Army investigation branch which sent it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who sent it to the special branch, who returned it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who finally sent it to the Attorney General, whose guidelines then became involved. Is there not a defect in a decision-making process which allows eight service men to be charged and brought to the Old Bailey on the flimsiest and most insubstantial evidence, which the jury must then consider? Is that not an appropriate subject for inquiry?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) can fairly come to the conclusion that there is a defect in the procedures — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because, until Mr. Calcutt has reached his conclusions, there is no possible justification for saying that. The House must appreciate that it is a fundamental responsibility of all three services and of defence Ministers to take the necessary procedural and administrative steps to ensure that the classified and highly sensitive material with which many service men are involved is properly protected. Where breaches of security may have occurred, it is important that there is a procedure clearly laid down for bringing the appropriate cases rapidly to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is nothing in this case which makes us feel anxious that the procedure was not followed.
It is essential that where the armed services' security authorities decide that a serious breach of security may have taken place and that there is a potentially serious breach of the Official Secrets Acts, the relevant papers are drawn to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Should not all concerned have justice? Have not the investigators been

condemned outside the court, on the basis of no certain information, for using Gestapo methods? Do the rules of the service allow those investigators to take legal action to defend themselves if they so wish?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend made an entirely fair and necessary point in his opening remarks. Some of the statements made in relation to service police in advance of the independent assessment of the allegations have been quite unjustified, and any such criticisms should await the conclusion of the Calcutt inquiry. That is elementary, fair and necessary justice. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that the service police investigators are just as entitled to a fair and independent hearing as anybody else.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are any secret documents or codes still missing?

Mr. Stanley: At the time of the original allegations, it was clear to the security authorities in the services that a serious breach of security appeared to have occurred. That included the apparent loss of documents. I can say nothing more on that.

Mr. Dalyell: Are they still missing?

Mr. James Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will go a long way to stilling the apprehensions of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and will be welcomed by all except those who would make political mischief out of this unhappy case?

Mr. Stanley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Adverting to the question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) will the Minister tell the House what powers Mr. David Calcutt will have — I repeat the word "powers" — if his investigations are to be thorough and complete? Are those powers to include the power to summon witnesses to take evidence on oath or to grant immunity? Surely, failure to give Mr. Calcutt such powers would render his investigation abortive. Does not the Minister agree that the case shows the great danger of allowing prosecutions to be brought on the basis of interrogation rather than collected and substantiated independent evidence?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that Mr. Calcutt will have power to take evidence on oath, but not power to compel the taking of evidence on oath. Immunity is a separate matter that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney—General will be considering with Mr. Calcutt.

Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. Friend will no doubt agree that in most Communist countries people who confess are never acquitted, and this case is a triumph of our system. Will not my right hon. Friend consider that regulations ought to be passed, closely following the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, to safeguard the accused persons, and to make sure that this does not happen again? The regulations should not follow only the evidential points, but should cover as wide a spectrum as possible.

Mr. Stanley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point, that the mere fact of an acquittal is not a matter of criticism under British justice. That matter seems to have been forgotten by some. There are specific provisions


in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that make it necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to publish codes to ensure that service men facing criminal charges will have the same protection as civilians in questioning and related areas.

Mr. John Ryman: Will the Minister deal with a specific point? Were the confessions of the service men ruled inadmissible by the trial judge? Upon being acquitted, did the defendants make an application for costs? Does the Minister appreciate that Mr. David Calcutt's inquiry is welcome, but it must take a certain amount of time, and in the intervening period, the acquitted defendants' service careers and reputation are in jeopardy? The Minister seems to imply by innuendo that being acquitted is not the same as innocence; therefore there is a continual slur upon the reputations of those defendants.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman's last comment is wholly wrong. I believe I made it clear that those men have have been found innocent, and that verdict is totally accepted by Ministers and by the armed services. I give the clearest possible assurance on that point. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, in the case of one service man the confession was ruled inadmissible on the grounds of the medical condition of the service man. The confessions of the remaining seven service men were not ruled inadmissible by the judge.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow questions upon this important matter to continue for a further five minutes. We have a very heavy day in front of us.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Minister give us some idea of what particular skill Mr. David Calcutt has in evaluating interrogation techniques involving duress and psychological techniques? Will he give us an assurance that the people who undertook the investigations in Cyprus and elsewhere will be suspended from duty pending Mr. Calcutt's report?

Mr. Stanley: There is no present intention to suspend any of the individuals concerned. That would not be a proper way to proceed in advance of the independent inquiry. Mr. David Calcutt is an extremely eminent silk. He is a former chairman of the Bar, and recently carried out the inquiry into the Falklands hospital fire. I think he is an appropriate person to conduct the investigation.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the outcome of this and previous cases neither he nor his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will flinch from taking the necessary action where a grievous haemorrhage of national security is thought to have taken place? May I assure him that he continues to enjoy the confidence of the House and many people outside in the sensitive way in which he has to make those judgments? Will he also take this opportunity to assure the Government and the people of Cyprus that the circumstances surrounding this case in no way undermine the confidence and friendship that we have for them in the common defence of our freedom?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I assure him that defence Ministers and other Ministers take

their security responsibilities very seriously; they are a continuing obligation on us. We enjoy a close friendship with Cyprus and good relations with the Cypriot Government, and I am certain that these events will not impair that in any way.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the jury system, as the only shield against injustice, was never better vindicated than in this case; and that in serious matters like this, military tribunals are not effective? The service men would almost certainly have been found guilty under that system. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider compensation? I believe that most of us think that to be charged with treason is possibly worse than being charged with murder, particularly in the armed forces. Bearing in mind that those men and their families have suffered for 22 months, does he not agree that it is ludicrous to think that those men may want to stay in the forces which, bluntly, have treated them so badly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) pointed out? My right hon. Friend says that this has never been done before, but I do not believe that there has been a greater injustice than what took place over the past 22 months in this case. Should we not repay something for 22 months of injustice?

Mr. Stanley: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's opening remarks, and all of us in the House endorse the jury system. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the correctness of ensuring that those proceedings were tried in the civilian courts. In the totality of jurisdiction there are many acquittals, but compensation in this case would raise wide issues which would have to be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As a former military policeman, I think that the important question is whether lawful procedures were followed. Section 75(1) of the Air Force Act 1955 gives protection to airmen against unnecessary delays in the criminal investigation of offences. If that section is found wanting, will the Minister assure the House that, when new primary legislation on military discipline is introduced, this and associated rights will be strengthened in the interests of young service men?

Mr. Stanley: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the benefit of his relevant experience. The question whether correct procedures were followed is central to Mr. Calcutt's inquiry. There can be no final answer on that matter until he produces his report. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the report's conclusions suggest changes in procedures, the matter will be examined closely, because our objective is that service men facing charges should have the same protection as civilians.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss with the Solicitor-General what happens when several defendants are on trial together? The abuse of the right of peremptory challenge of jurors can mean the introduction of bias into our courts instead of its removal.

Mr. Stanley: I think that my hon. Friend will understand tht that important point is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Can the Minister make a couple of factual observations which do not affect the inquiry? Were the original investigating officers in the case of the Cyprus seven the same officers who investigated the case of Paul Davies?
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that Mr. Costas Elenas, who was referred to throughout the trial, undertook to act as a witness, but that the Attorney-General was not prepared to give him immunity against prosecution in Britain? The Minister has not been forthcoming on the powers of the tribunal. Will witnesses get immunity from prosecution when they appear before judges? Will the evidence be taken on oath? Will witnesses be compelled to come forward and give evidence on oath? Will protection be given to members of the services who give evidence, so that their careers will not be prejudiced in any way?
Regarding ministerial responsibility, the Opposition find it hard to accept that Ministers who have prosecuted Pontin, Paul Davies and now the Cyprus seven did not know what was going on. They should have seen the warning lights about discrepancies that were likely to appear and that there would be a powerful case for the defence in confessions taken under duress.
Regardless of the Prime Minister's concerns, is the Minister convinced that security in Cyprus is now secure — or, following the acquittal, are we looking for somebody else?

Mr. Stanley: As I said in my statement, as soon as this case came to light, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly initiated an exhaustive study of the security procedures in Cyprus and related establishments worldwide. Recommendations arising from detailed investigations have been accepted and have been or are being implemented. No one can express absolute confidence in security, because any security is vulnerable. That is self-evident. I believe that my right hon. Friend has taken the correct steps. A number of changes in security have been made. We have done our utmost to prevent a repetition of this case.
I do not know whether the investigators involved in the earlier proceedings were also involved in this case. I will be happy to look into the matter and give the hon. Gentleman that information. Immunity for witnesses must be a matter for the Attorney General. I have already dealt with taking evidence on oath and with immunity. I made it clear that the question of immunity will be discussed between Mr. Calcutt and the Attorney General.

Board and Lodging (Regulations)

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said a little earlier that we had a heavy day ahead of us. There seems some prospect that the day might be lightened if the Government were not to move the social security regulations relating to board and lodging payments. Since the Leader of the House is present, perhaps you could give him the opportunity to assist the House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Joint Committee reported that these regulations may be ultra vires, and the Department is aware that they may be ultra vires. Rather than having the prospect of the Government shooting themselves in the foot again later tonight, can we have the position made clear?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): That was a most helpful intervention on the part of the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General met the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments this afternoon to discuss the effect and meaning of the draft board and lodging regulations. Following this meeting, I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to give further consideration to some of the points raised by the Committee. In these circumstances, the Government do not believe that it would be right to ask the House to debate these regulations tonight.

Access to Personal Files

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide access for private individuals to information relating to themselves maintained by certain authorities, institutions and persons; to allow individuals to obtain copies of, and require corrections to be made to, such information; and to provide for the enforcement of these provisions.
The House will be aware that a similar Bill was before us as recently as last Session. In July 1984 the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) introduced a measure in very similar terms. This Bill, as did that, has all-party support. This Bill, as did that, will no doubt fall when the House is prorogued tomorrow afternoon.
The sponsors of the Bill have deliberately sought to draw the attention of the House to this measure on the last day of the parliamentary Session. This is done on the basis that it has merits which are unique and on which I hope to address the House briefly in a moment. We also seek to highlight opportunities in the forthcoming ballots for private Members' Bills, bringing with them, as they do automatically, the parliamentary time required to translate any such Bill to the statute book. Statutory provision for putting this Bill on the statute book is the goal of the sponsors, and nothing less will do.
If I did not run the risk of straying out of order, Mr. Speaker, I would spend the rest of my 10 minutes engaging in a commercial or a trailer for the private Members' ballot, because this Bill is unique in as much as it is achievable, it is non-controversial and a lot of time has been spent in making it such. It would have a profound impact in changing attitudes to secrecy in this country, and it would have widespread support. If it found favour this afternoon, the Bill would be in a printed form.
The timing of the measure is particularly appropriate. It is the next most obvious step in the whole campaign for freedom of information, which it would be in the interests of the country to achieve.
The need for the Bill is urgent and self-evident. Two major problems currently arise. Factual errors can be made, sometimes caused by carelessness, and at other times made in good faith. However the errors are generated, they can result in Executive action and administrative decisions leading to quite inappropriate treatment, in a health context, or other equally serious personal injustices.
The most recent example that has come to my notice was the tragic death of four-year-old Jasmine Beckford, where it became clear in the subsequent inquiry that the report on the foster parents, when Jasmine Beckford was taken from them, was quite inaccurate and may have contributed to the decision by the social work department to return her to her stepfather and natural mother. Alternatively, situations can arise where information of a highly subjective or speculative nature or pure opinion can be included in a file which, if promulgated unchallenged, can cause distress and damage which can be prejudicial to individuals. As an example, health records may contain comments such as "Doesn't like doctors." This health record pursues the person throughout his medical history and can have unfortunate and unjustified results.
There have been some encouraging signs. Some of these problems are being recognised in some quarters. Some authorities and professional bodies already actively encourage a policy of free access, and the results of this experience, such as have been reported, are wholly beneficial. The experience reported from other countries which operate a policy of free access is also wholly encouraging. The House should study with care the results of the introduction of free access in America, where a staggeringly high number of reported errors and inaccuracies was found when the policy was introduced.
Our Government have, in a limited way, introduced systems which allow some access in certain situations. For example, the Housing Act 1980 means that housing applications are now covered to some extent. There is also the Education Act 1981 and the DHSS circular of 1983 on guidance to social work authorities. These are all encouraging and very welcome signs.
The Bill will also redress the anomaly that will exist in November 1987 after the full implementation of the Data Protection Act, which creates a statutory right of access to electronically but not manually stored information. We shall then be in the ridiculous position that if a person lives in a part of the country where records are stored electronically he can have access, but if they are not so stored he is denied access.
The powers of the Bill allow an individual to discover whether certain records are held, allow for the supply of copies of any records, allow inaccuracies to be corrected, allow individuals to seek compensation where damage or distress can be proved to have flowed from errors, and allow recourse to the courts if the authority holding the information fails to comply with the law.
The Bill embraces the principal public authorities providing services to the public. This includes health authorities, individual doctors, education authorities, social work departments, any credit agencies that keep records of the ratings of an individual and certain administration of justice records, and authorities whose duties include the administration of benefits, grants and other types of assistance to the public.
The restriction to these public authorities is a deliberate compromise. Some sponsors would like the Bill to be much more widely drawn, but it is deliberately limited to enhance the prospects of wider acceptance, and therefore increase the chances of its getting on to the statute book.
The important part of that compromise, and the important exceptions built into the Bill, can be briefly stated. They are that information will not be released when it involves the privacy of any other person, when it reveals the identity of someone who gave information on a confidential basis, when someone other than the applicant might be subjected to physical harm as a result of the release of the information, or when, in a few cases, it is the opinion of a doctor that it could cause mental distress to a patient. Finally, information will not be released when it would breach established legal, professional privileges.
The Bill is well thought out and properly drafted. I pay tribute to the work being done by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which is widely respected and straddles all strands of opinion in the country, political and otherwise, and which has done a great deal of work. The past 18 months have been spent in extremely thorough consultation with the interested parties and in winning over some of the professional bodies which originally had


doubts about the Bill. It is a highly popular issue with the public, and therefore it is extremely unlikely that it would be actively opposed by the Government.
We need access as of right to information recorded about ourselves, and we need the right to ensure that such information is both fair and correct. The legislation to create those rights will do more to enhance the quality of our democracy and redress the balance between the administrative arm of government and the individual than almost any other Bill that could be introduced by a Back-Bench Member. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will give the Bill careful consideration when the private Members' ballot is held. I hope that the Bill will find favour with the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

ACCESS TO PERSONAL FILES

Mr. Archy Kirkwood accordingly presented a Bill to provide access for private individuals to information relating to themselves maintained by certain authorities, institutions and persons; to allow individuals to obtain copies of, and require corrections to be made to, such information; and to provide for the enforcement of these provisions:

And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill No. 214.]

Transport Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Order of the House [1st April] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 1st April, shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion. it Ten o'clock.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment disignated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment: and
(iv) put forwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question. That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question of any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

I hope that we shall not spend long debating the motion, and will instead move swiftly to considering the amendments to the Bill that have come from the other place.

The vast majority of the amendments are purely drafting and technical, but a significant number make important and constructive changes, notably the additional provisions to ensure that the interests of elderly and disabled passengers receive due attention. These amendments, and more of the other substantive amendments, were initiated by the Opposition or by Back-Bench Members of the other place. We tried wherever possible to respond positively where we felt that amendments were genuinely seeking to improve the Bill rather than to undermine its fundamental principles. I said before the Second Reading that we wanted to fashion a better Bill, and these amendments go towards achieving that.

Last night, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) did not know whether to attack the amendments or to welcome them. I can understand her dilemma, because the amendments reinforce the Bill, whereas she simply wishes to wreck it. True to form, the Opposition have tabled a number of amendments, some of which raise again the fundamental issues of policy underlying the Bill. I shall be disappointed if the Opposition choose to waste time today on the motion, rather than getting on with considering the issues.

This is a long and complex Bill, but, despite the guillotine, it has received very thorough consideration by Parliament. In this House alone, the time spent so far amounts to some 174 hours. In the other place, the Bill received some 70 hours of debate, and there were some 20 Divisions. The supplement to the order will ensure that we have a further 4 hours of debate this evening. I know that a large number of amendments have been accepted for debate. It is a bit hard to respond to the Opposition by being flexible and accepting amendments and then to be accused, as I was last night, of not having prepared the Bill properly.

It is time that the Bill was on the statute book. It puts the customer first, by removing unnecessary restrictions over competition between operators. It applies to the bus industry the market approach that is regarded as perfectly normal, and indeed vital, in most other sectors of the

economy. Urgent action is needed to stem the sorry pattern of declining patronage, rising costs and escalating subsidy. No Government could sit on their hands and allow the decline to continue. That would not be in the interests of passengers and it would certainly not be in the interests of the industry and those who work in it.

It was in July last year that we set out in the White Paper our reasons for believing that customers on local bus services now deserve the same benefits as passengers on express services have enjoyed since 1980. We consulted widely on the White Paper and we brought forward a Bill, dealing not just with deregulation, but providing for a comprehensive package of measures to enable competition to operate fairly, within a stable framework of safety controls and financial support for socially desirable services. The Bill has now received the fullest possible examination by Parliament over a period of nine months.

Operators and local authorities have much to do between now and deregulation day on 26 October next year to prepare for the new system. The order will ensure that the House has the opportunity to decide at a reasonable hour this evening the last few remaining issues to be resolved. The Bill can then complete its final stages and the industry, and those who work with it, can get on with the task of making the transition to deregulation. The time for arguing is coming to an end, and the time for action is about to begin.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is instructive to look carefully at the Bill that we are now hurrying on to the statute book with the aid of a timetable motion. It will initiate a revolution not just in local public transport but in parliamentary procedure, and the results of the experiments prove that there should be no repetition of the methods used by the Secretary of State.
The Government have a manifesto commitment to more competition in the bus industry, and that was taken as justification for ignoring the whole of the normal consultation procedures. The White Paper on buses, published in July 1984, was written without any of the normal discussions and in a form that made it difficult for people to respond easily to it. There were 7,000 respondents. They were required to let the Department have their views during the two summer months. That shows the depth of anger that this extraordinary legislation has aroused.
It is interesting to note that only a handful of the 7,000 who responded supported the Government's plans. One of their supporters, from the Adam Smith Institute, was a bankrupt bus operator. That there were 7,000 replies shows the depth of anger aroused by the Bill. When it was published in February 1985 it was found that bus substitution had been added to the original legislation, yet this had been discussed only in a Green Paper that applied to Wales. This was to become law on the basis of no real examination of its implications for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Government showed how much interest they have in informed discussion through their choice of Committee members. Many Tory Members of Parliament who are known to have an interest in transport were deliberately excluded. Committee membership was top heavy with Parliamentary Private Secretaries and the most junior Members of the House. The Government's fear of open debate went even further. They refused to wait until the


Select Committee report on buses was published, although they were aware that it was a detailed and useful examination of an enormous lacuna in this legislation. The Government went further still by making personal attacks on the Chairman of the Select Committee, a most valued and highly independent Member of Parliament whom we shall miss very much indeed.
The Committee stage began on 21 February. By April fool's day—94 debating hours and one non-Government amendment later—the Government asked, for the first time, for the imposition of the guillotine. Only 11 clauses had been debated. The only non-Government amendment made at that stage was the reduction in the retirement age for traffic commissioners from 70 to 65. By 7 May the Committee stage was completed, after another 55 hours of debate—a total of 150 hours of discussion. During that time the Government allowed two non-Conservative amendments—

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Dunwoody: They allowed rail and ferry travel to remain within the concessionary fares rules, including the change to which I have already referred.
Then the Government allowed Tory Back Benchers to stage probably the most phoney rebellion that one has ever seen in a Committee. To say that it was ill rehearsed is to put it mildly. Suddenly we were told that no longer would the public be allowed to object to the issue of public service vehicle licences when operators were thought to be unsuitable by the customer. Later the Government repented and introduced a very much amended and weaker version which still excludes the general public and includes only local authorities and the police. The Government were clearly terrified of allowing the general public to have a say. Therefore, they decided to remove that aspect from the legislation. By that stage the Government had amended their Bill no fewer than 122 times.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Report stage on 22 May made the new parliamentary procedure much clearer. During the two days of debate the Government blocked all 17 amendments from Opposition Members, but 138 Government amendments and 13 new clauses were passed. The Government used the House as a departmental drafting body. Although hon. Members were allowed to vent their anger, they were outvoted. The tidying up of the Government's unformed schemes went ahead unaffected. The result was that 13 hours of debate produced more change than the 150 hours of detailed discussion. The Government could not have shown more clearly their deep contempt for the House of Commons as a place of debate and enlightenment.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: In July the Government proved that they could go one better. The other place debated the Bill in Committee for six days. Well over 300 amendments were discussed—mainly Government amendments. The same drafting method was applied in another place. On Report in another place between 14 and 17 October the drafting system was used to deal with over 400 amendments—again, tabled mainly by the Government. Finally, on 24 October, on Third Reading in another place,

there were still 86 amendments to be dealt with. The Government made 420 amendments to their Bill during its passage in another place, but only one non-Government amendment was accepted. It watered down the effect of the Tory rebellion in Committee in this place.

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall give way in a moment.
During the nine months in which the Bill has been debated in Parliament, the Government have amended it 680 times and added over 30 new clauses. However, they have not made the slightest gesture in the direction of the views of the general public, of anybody involved in the transport industry or of the local authorities which will most directly involved.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Does the hon. Lady accept that many of the Government amendments were tabled in response to points raised either in Committee or after consultation with local authorities, bus operators and others in the industry?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not. If one looks at the number of amendments that the Government are still trying to write into the Bill, one finds that many of them arise not from changes of principle — certainly not from consultations, which this Secretary of State does not understand in any practical way—but from the fact that the Bill was badly drafted and ill conceived. It should not have been introduced in this Session of Parliament. There should have been consultation on a Green Paper.
We are dealing with one of the greatest changes in public transport in 50 years, yet the Secretary of State has followed no real consultation procedure. He has rejected the normal parliamentary procedures. Instead of legislation being introduced with a view to considering the reaction of hon. Members, the legislative procedure has been turned into a sham in a ruthless attempt to save time. The only real discussion that was allowed took place in the Department. The House has been regarded as a very minor step in the presentation of the Secretary of State's views —or perhaps I should say his prejudices. He knows that he has been found wanting by the courts of this land. I shall not refer to his theft of £50 million from the Greater London council for London Regional Transport. Consultation is an important aspect when framing legislation. I remind the Secretary of State—

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall give way in a moment to the Secretary of State. 
I remind the Secretary of State of a point made by the judge when one case was brought before the courts. It was pointed out to the Secretary of State that consultation means more than simply telling people what will be done. When he consults the House, he must be willing to listen to the arguments. The fact that 680 amendments were made, only two of which were Opposition amendments, shows how little the Secretary of State has learnt. About: 1,700 amendments were tabled. The Secretary of State can congratulate himself upon the fact that no real account has been taken of the views of the general public or of anybody who recognises how vital public transport is to the people of this country. I congratulate him upon having acted in an unacceptable way. He has behaved in an even more arrogant fashion than is his wont.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 186.

Division No. 305]
[6.10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Fletcher, Alexander


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ancram, Michael
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Franks, Cecil


Aspinwall, Jack
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fry, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Galley, Roy


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Baldry, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Batiste, Spencer
Grant, Sir Anthony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gregory, Conal


Bellingham, Henry
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bendall, Vivian
Grist, Ian


Benyon, William
Ground, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grylls, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Blackburn, John
Hannam,John


Body, Richard
Harris, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harvey, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Bottomley, Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hayward, Robert


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heddle, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Henderson, Barry


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hickmet, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bright, Graham
Hind, Kenneth


Brinton, Tim
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Browne, John
Holt, Richard


Bruinvels, Peter
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Buck, Sir Antony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Burt, Alistair
Irving, Charles


Butler, Hon Adam
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Carttiss, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lamont, Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Lang, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Lawler, Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Cockeram, Eric
Lightbown, David


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Conway, Derek
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cope, John
Lord, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Lyell, Nicholas


Corrie, John
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Couchman, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Critchley, Julian
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Maclean, David John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Dover, Den
McQuarrie, Albert


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Madel, David


Dunn, Robert
Major, John


Durant, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Evennett, David
Marland, Paul


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fallon, Michael
Mates, Michael





Mather, Carol
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maude, Hon Francis
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mellor, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Shersby, Michael


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Silvester, Fred


Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Monro, Sir Hector
Speller, Tony


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spence, John


Moore, John
Spencer, Derek


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Squire, Robin


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Murphy, Christopher
Stern, Michael


Neale, Gerrard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Cranley
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Ottaway, Richard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Terlezki, Stefan


Parris, Matthew
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M,


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pollock, Alexander
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Powley, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Price, Sir David
Viggers, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raffan, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watson, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wheeler, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Whitfield, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitney, Raymond


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ryder, Richard



Sackville, Hon Thomas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Archie Hamilton.


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.



Sayeed, Jonathan



NOES


Abse, Leo
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Alton, David
Bidwell, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bruce, Malcolm


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ian


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beith, A. J.
Canavan, Dennis


Bell, Stuart
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Benn, Tony
Cartwright, John






Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Loyden, Edward


Clarke, Thomas
McCartney, Hugh


Clay, Robert
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Coleman, Donald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McTaggart, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Craigen, J. M.
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Martin, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Maxton, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Meacher, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Michie, William


Dewar, Donald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dixon, Donald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Douglas, Dick
Nellist, David


Dubs, Alfred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
 O'Brien, William


Eadie, Alex
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Ellis, Raymond
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Ewing, Harry
Penhaligon, David


Fatchett, Derek
Pike, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Prescott, John


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Radice, Giles


Fisher, Mark
Randall, Stuart


Forrester, John
Redmond, M.


Foster, Derek
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foulkes, George
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Robertson, George


George, Bruce
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rogers, Allan


Golding, John
Rooker, J. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Hardy, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Soley, Clive


Home Robertson, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howells, Geraint
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Janner, Hon Greville
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Tinn, James


John, Brynmor
Torney, Tom


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wallace, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Welsh, Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
White, James


Lambie, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Lamond, James
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Leadbitter, Ted
Wilson, Gordon


Leighton, Ronald
Winnick, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Woodall, Alec


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Litherland, Robert



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Robin Corbett and Mr. John McWilliam.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House [1st April] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 1st April, shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment disignated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first consideration of Lards Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question of any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day — Transport Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

LOCAL SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2 line 35, at end insert—
("(5) Subsections (5)(b)(c) and (6) of section 1 of the 1981 Act (meaning of "fares") shall apply for the purposes of this section.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we shall discuss the following Lords amendments:

No. 53, in clause 26, page 26, line 35, leave out "the 1981" and insert "that".

No. 54, in clause 26, page 26, line 38, leave out "the 1981" and insert "that".

No. 296, in schedule 1, page 120 line 3, at end insert—

The Transport Act 1968

1. In section 159(1) of the Transport Act 1968 (interpretation)—

(a) for the definition of "bus service" there shall be substituted the following—
 'bus service' means a local service other than one on which the passengers travel together on a journey, with or without breaks, from one or more places to one or more places and back"; and

(b) the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
 'local service' has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985;" ".

No. 297, in schedule 1, page 120, line 10, leave out from beginning to "to", in line 12, and insert—
3. — (1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Energy Act 1976 (relaxation of road traffic and transport law) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for the words from "any", where it first occurs,".

No. 298, in schedule 1, page 120, line 15, leave out "and" and insert—
(3) In sub-paragraph (1),".

No. 299, in schedule 1, page 120, line 20, at end insert—
(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) the words "or Part III" shall be omitted and after "1981" there shall be inserted the words "or Part I or II of the Transport Act 1985".
(5) In sub-paragraph (2), the words "section 60 of", and the words from "general" to first "vehicles", shall be omitted and after "1981" there shall be inserted "or Part I of the Transport Act 1985".".

No. 300, in schedule 1, page 120, line 42, at end insert—
6A. In section 53(1) of that Act (payment of expenses), for the words "II or III" there shall be substituted the words "or II"".

No. 301, in schedule 1, page 121, line 10, after "(a)" insert "of that Act".

No. 302, in schedule 1, page 122, line 29, at end insert "the provisions of".

No. 303, in schedule 1, page 122, line 36, at end insert—


14.—Subject to any provision made by or under this Act, in any enactment or instrument passed or made before the commencement of section 1 of this Act—
(a) any reference to a stage carriage service shall be construed as a reference to a local service;
(b) any reference to an express carriage service shall be construed as a reference to any service for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward at separate fares which is neither a local service nor one provided by a vehicle to which sub-paragraph (2) below applies;
(c) any reference to a stage carriage shall be construed as a reference to a public service vehicle being used in the provision of a local service;
(d) any reference to an express carriage shall be construed as a reference to a public service vehicle being used to carry passengers for hire or reward at separate fares other than one being used in the provision of a local service; and
(e) any reference to a contract carriage shall be construed as a reference to a public service vehicle being used to carry passengers for hire or reward otherwise than at separate fares.
(2) When used in circumstances in which the conditions set out in Part III of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act are fulfilled, a public service vehicle carrying passengers at separate fares shall be treated, for the purposes of any enactment or instrument to which paragraph (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph (1) above applies, as being used to carry passengers otherwise than at separate fares.".

No. 307, in schedule 2, page 139, line 21, at end insert—

The Transport Act 1968

1. — (1) The Transport Act 1968 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 96(10)(b), there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" the word "commissioner" and for the words "commissioners or authority think" the words "commissioner thinks".

(3) In section 98(3), there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" in both places the word "commissioner" and for the words "commissioners or authority think" the words "commissioner thinks".

(4) In section 99, there shall be substituted for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" in subsections (1) and (8) the word "commissioner".

(5) In section 103(5), for the words "commissioners or licensing authority" there shall be substituted the word "commissioner".

No. 368, in schedule 6, page 146, line 6, leave out from "services" to end of line 7.

No. 377, in schedule 6, page 148, line 21, leave out sub-paragraph (6).

No. 397, in schedule 7, page 151, line 22, column 3, at end insert—




"In section 103(1), the definition of "licensing authority".".

No. 398, in schedule 7, page 151, line 24, column 3, leave out "definition of "area bus service"" and insert—




"definitions of the following expressions—




"area bus service"; excursion or tour"; express carriage" and "stage carriage"; and "road service licence"."

No. 403, in schedule 7, page 152, line 12, at end insert—


"1976 c. 76.
The Energy Act 1976.
In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1(1)(c) the words "or Part III" and "and", paragraph 1(1)(d) and in paragraph 1(2) the words "section 60 of"and the words from "general" to first "vehicles"."

No. 404, in schedule 7, page 152, line 17, at end insert—


"1980 c. 34.
The Transport Act 1980.
In Schedule 5, in Part II, the paragraph amending the Transport Act 1968."

No. 408, in schedule 7, page 152, line 43, column 3, at end insert—




"In section 53(1), the words "the" before the words "traffic commissioners" and the words" or section 45". ".

Mr. Ancram: This is a group of consequential and drafting amendments. Their most important purpose is to bring the terminology of the Transport Act 1968. the Energy Act 1976 the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 into line with that of the Bill, and to provide that phrases such as "stage carriage" in previous legislation, including local and subordinate legislation, have a continuing meaning.
The amendment to clause 2 ensures that separate "fares" in that clause has the same meaning as in section 2 of the 1981 Act, thus preventing the evasion of registration by bogus free services.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 2, leave out "section" and insert "sections".

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 3, in page 3, line 31,
at end insert—
5.—(1) Every traffic commissioner shall publish, in such form and at such times as may be prescribed, such information with respect to the exercise, or proposed exercise, of any of his functions under this Act or the Transport Act 1985 as may be prescribed.
(2) Where the traffic commissioner for a traffic area publishes information under this section he shall—
(a) send a copy of the publication—
(i) to every chief officer of police, Passenger Transport Executive and local authority whose area falls partly or wholly within that traffic area; and
(ii) where that traffic area falls wholly or partly within London, to London Regional Transport. And
(b) make a copy of it available (by post if required and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed) to any one who asks for one.
3) In this section "local authority" means—
(a) in England and Wales, the council of any non-metropolitan county, any district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London; and
(b) in Scotland, any regional or islands council.".

No. 11, in clause 6, page 7, line 5, leave out from first "to" to second "the".

No. 13, in clause 6, page 7, line 25, leave out subsection (9) and (10).

No. 20, in clause 7, page 9, line 33, leave out subsection (15).

No. 270, in clause 110, page 109, line 38, after "Act" insert—


(b) traffic regulation conditions determined under section 7 of this Act;

No. 321, in schedule 2, page 127, line 27, leave out from "or" to end of line 30.

No. 378, in schedule 6, page 148, line 23, at end insert—
(7A) In section 56(1) (records of licences etc.) there shall be added, at the end, the words "and shall allow the record to be inspected at all reasonable times by members of the public".

No. 409, in schedule 7, page 152, line 44, column 3, leave out "(1)" and insert "in subsection (1)"

No. 410, in schedule 7, page 152, line 45, column 3, at end insert "and subsection (2)"

Mr. Ancram: These amendments put the traffic commissioners' publication "Notice and Proceedings" on a statutory footing, and remove the separate and then redundant requirement for the Traffic Commissioners to send details of registrations to local authorities and the police. The amendment provides for the content of notices and proceedings to be specified in regulations. It will cover registrations, traffic regulation conditions and applications for operators' licences, among other things. It will be provided free to local authorities and the police, and will be a general sale. The group also includes amendments simplifying and codifying the requirement on the traffic commissioners to keep records of licences, traffic regulations and so on, and make them available to members of the public.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

INQUIRIES HELD BY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
(4A) Where a traffic commissioner holds an inquiry he may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed and subject to any provision made under subsection (4B) below, make such order as he thinks fit as to the payment, by such party to the inquiry as he thinks fit, of costs incurred by him or by the Secretary of State in connection with the holding of the inquiry.
(4B) Regulations may make provision, in relation to orders under subsection (4A) above, as to—

(a) the method of calculating the amount of any costs incurred as mentioned in that subsection; and
(b) the maximum amount which may be ordered to be paid under such an order.
(4C) Any amount so ordered to be paid by any person may be recoverable from him—

(a) in England and Wales, as a debt due to the Crown; or
(b) in Scotland, by the Secretary of State.".

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment gives the traffic commissioner a power to award costs, which will be used to deter delaying tactics and similar abuses, for instance by people called before him for possible disciplinary action.
The amendment gives power to the commissioner to recover only his costs, and those of the Department in providing accommodation and clerical assistance for an inquiry. It does not enable the commissioner to order one party to pay the costs of another. We understand from the commissioners that they would not welcome the responsibility of adjudicating in such a way, and, of course, in many public service vehicle operator licensing

cases, particularly the disciplinary ones of which we are primarily thinking, there is only one party—the person whom the commissioner has called to the inquiry.
The regulations we shall make under subsection (4A) will limit the. recovery of costs to cases where the person against whom the award is made has acted vexatiously, frivolously or the like. The vast majority of people appearing at commissioners' inquiries, for whatever reason, need not fear an increased expense. Indeed, they and all licence holders will benefit if the commissioners' costs are kept down because all costs are met from fees. We see that power as a deterrent and, we hope, an effective one—and not a way of raising money.
The regulations will lay down the way in which costs are calculated, and a maximum. That will prevent the commissioners' task from being invidious.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

REGISTRATION OF LOCAL SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 6, line 2, leave out second "a" and insert "an unconditional".

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following Lords amendments:

No. 6, in page 6, line 4, after "bus" insert "belonging to that person".

No. 7, in page 6, line 5, at end insert—
(4A) In subsection (4) above "unconditional", in relation to a PSV operator's licence, means a licence which does not have attached to it a condition imposed under section 26(1) of this Act prohibiting, or having the effect of prohibiting, the operator from using vehicles under the licence to provide the service to which the application in question relates.

No. 8, in page 6, line 9, leave out "at the instance of and insert
("on an application made by")

No 9, in page 6, line 14, leave out from
commissioner" to "and" in line 15, and insert "accepts the application".

No. 10, in page 6, line 43, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
(e) for an application for registration or for the variation or cancellation of a registration not to be accepted by the traffic commissioner to whom it is made unless the applicant gives to the commissioner such information as he may reasonably require in connection with the application.".

No. 12, in page 7, line 24, at end insert—
(kk) for excluding from the application of this section services which are—

(i) excursions or tours; or
(ii) excursions or tours falling within a prescribed class.".

No. 14, in clause 7, page 7, line 44, leave out from "service" to end of line 45 and insert
means any local service to which section 6 of this Act applies".

No. 32, in clause 12, page 14, line 41, at end insert—
(5A) in subsection (5)(b) above "local service" does not include an excursion or tour.".

No. 50, in clause 25, page 25, line 36, at end insert—
(2A) Where the effect of a condition attached to a PSV operator's licence under subsection (1) above is that the operator of a local service registered under section 6 of this Act is prohibited from using vehicles under the licence to provide that service, the traffic commissioner attaching the condition may—

(a) cancel the registration; or


(b)where the service is registered with another traffic commissioner, direct that it be cancelled.
(2B) Where a direction is given under subsection (2A)(b)
above, it shall be the duty of the traffic commissioner with whom the service is registered to cancel the registration.".

No. 269, in clause 110, page 109, line 21, leave out paragraph (a)and insert—
(a) applications for the registration of services under section 6 of this Act and for the variation of such registrations.

Mr. Ancram: This group of amendments closes some possible loopholes in the registration system, by precluding registration by operators with conditions on their operators' licences, preventing them from running local services, or by education authorities which are using contract services rather than their own vehicles to provide school transport. That makes it more flexible by allowing for the exemption of certain excursions or tours from registration. We propose to require only these excursions that are hard to distinguish from ordinary local services to register. The other amendments in the group are drafting improvements.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 7

APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATION CONDITIONS TO LOCAL SERVICES SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 6

Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 8, line 41, leave out from beginning to "received", in line 43, and insert "if he has".

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss the following Lords amendments:

No. 16, in page 9, line 8, leave out "or (b)" and insert 
and the request has not been withdrawn.
(10) Subsection (9) above shall not apply where the traffic commissioner".

No. 17, in page 9, line 14, after "(a)" insert "(i) or (iii)".

No. 18, in page 9, line 15, after "above" insert
or any other traffic authority affected by the conditions".

No. 19, in page 9, line 15, leave out from second "the" to "asked" in line 16 and insert "prescribed period".

No. 21, in page 9, line 38, leave out "any traffic area in".

No. 23, in page 9, line 39, leave out from "county" to "and", in line 40.

No. 24, in page 9, line 41, leave out "any traffic area in".

No. 25, in page 9, line 42, leave out from "area" to end of line 43.

Mr. Ancram: These amendments clarify the wording of the provision that requires traffic commissioners to hold inquiries into traffic regulations conditions on request, and recognise that a neighbouring county, metropolitan district or Scottish regional or island council may have a legitimate interest in a condition — especially one relating to a road or roads close to a county or other boundary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 21 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No 22, in page 9, line 39, after "any" insert "metropolitan district or non-metropolitan".

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That this House doth agree wath the Lords in the said agreement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will discuss the following Lords amendments:

No. 72, in clause 36, page 34, line 5, leave out "the Greater London Council and".

No. 75, in clause 37, page 35, line 9, leave out "Greater London Council" and insert
council of a London borough or by the Common Council;".

No. 79, in clause 45, page 42, line 4, leave out "the Greater London Council and".

No. 80, in clause 45, page 42, line 13, leave out "the Greater London Council and".

No. 92, in clause 57, page 50, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 51 and insert—
(a) each of the following areas, that is to say—

(i) in England and. Wales, the metropolitan counties; and
(ii) in Scotland, that part of the Strathclyde region which was a designated area for the purposes of this Part of this Act immediately before the date on which section 57 of the Transport Act 1985 came into operation:
shall be a passenger transport area;
(b) the Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area (referred to below in this Part of this Act, in relation to that area, as "the Authority") shall be—

(i) in relation to a passenger transport area in England and Wales, the metropolitan county' council; and
(ii) in relation to the Strathclyde passenger transport area, the Strathclyde regional council; and
(c) the Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area (referred to below in this Part of this Act, in relation to that area, as "the Executive") shall be the body which immediately before the date mentioned in paragraph (a) above was the Passenger Transport Executive for the designated area for the purposes of this Part of this Act corresponding to that passenger transport area.".

No. 95, in clause 57, page 51, line 35, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 15 on page 52.

New Clause

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION: TRANSPORT FUNCTIONS.

No. 106, after clause 57, insert—
. —(1) The following provisions of this section with the exception of subsection (4) shall have effect from the abolition date within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1985 (that is to say, 1st April 1986).
(2) In section 9 of the 1968 Act (as amended by section 57(1) of this Act)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to any order under section 42(1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1985 (alteration or abolition of passenger transport areas, etc.)"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b) (i), for the word "council" there shall be substituted the words "passenger transport authority for the county which is coterminous with or includes that passenger transport area";
(b) in subsection (4), after the word "the" (where it last occurs) there shall be inserted the words "county which is coterminous with or includes that"; and


(c) in subsection (5), as it applies in England and Wales, after the words "comprised in" there shall be inserted the words "a county which is coterminous with or includes".
(2A) In section 9B(1) of that Act, after the words "comprised in" there shall be inserted the words "county which is coterminous with or includes".
(3) In the Local Government Act 1985—

(a) paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of Schedule 12 shall be omitted;
(b) in section 39(2) (operative dates for schedule 12), for the words "paragraphs 1 to 4" there shall be substituted the words "paragraphs 3"; and
(c) in section 42(1)(c) (reorganisation of functions with respect to passenger transport), after the words "section 39 above" there shall be inserted the words "or section (Local government reorganisation: transport functions) of the Transport Act 1985".
(4) Provisions of that Act referrring generally to that Act, or to any provision made by or under that Act, shall have effect as if subsections (1) to (2A) above were contained in that Act.".

No. 169, in clause 70, page 71, line 42, leave out "the" and insert "any".

No. 170, in clause 70, page 72, line 2, at end insert—
(1A) Where a public transport company's controlling authority are a Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area in England and Wales, a director of that company who is paid for acting as such or is an employee of that company or a subsidiary of that company shall be disqualified for being appointed or being a member of that Passenger Transport Authority.

No. 171, in clause 70, in page 72, line 5, after "above" insert
or of any such Passenger Transport Authority as is mentioned in subsection (1A) above".

No. 172, in clause 70, page 72, line 6, leave out "the council" and insert "that council or Authority".

No. 176, in clause 70, page 73, line 8, after "authority" insert
, and any Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area in England and Wales who are a public transport company's controlling authority,".

No. 177, in clause 70, page 73, line 9, leave out "the council" and insert
that council or Authority".

No. 178, in clause 70, page 73, line 10, leave out "the council" and insert
that council or Authority".

No. 180, in clause 70, page 73, line 15, leave out from "any" to "or" in line 17 and insert
such council or Passenger Transport Authority as is mentioned in subsection (8) above".

No. 181, in clause 70, page 73, line 19, at end insert
or Passenger Transport Authority'.

No. 182, in clause 70, page 73, line 21, leave out "such councils" and insert
that council or Authority".

No. 183, in clause 70, page 73, line 23, leave out "the council" and insert
that council or Authority".

No. 184, in clause 70, page 73, line 26, after "Act" insert
, except that it includes also a metropolitan county passenger transport authority".

No. 185, in clause 70, page 73, line 22, after "council" insert
or Passenger Transport Authority as is mentioned in subsection (8) above".

No. 232, in clause 93, page 96, line 4 at end insert "and".

No. 233, in clause 93, page 96, line 12, leave out from "above" to end of line 14.

No. 234, in clause 93, page 96, line 22, at end insert "and".

No. 235, in clause 93, page 96, line 24, leave out from ""(d)"" to end of line 28.

No. 292, in clause 123, page 119, line 22, after "section" insert
, section (Local government reorganisation: transport functions)of this Act".

No. 293, in clause 123, page 119, line 24, at end insert
(including different purposes of the same provision)".

No. 325, in schedule 3, page 129, line 26, after "(4)") insert ("(i)".

No. 326, in schedule 3, page 129, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert
"The Authority for the Executive's area":.

(ii) for the words "such a council" there shall be substituted the words "the Authority for a passenger transport area"; and
(iii) for the word "council" in each place where it occurs in paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the word "Authority".".

No. 327, in schedule 3, page 129, leave out lines 33 to 39 and insert—

Power to make grants

13. The Authority shall have power to make grants to the Executive for any purpose."

No. 328, in schedule 3, page 129, line 41, leave out from "Wales" to end of line 43 and insert
for the words "for the designated area and to each of the councils fof constituent areas" there shall be substituted the words "and to each of the councils of the districts comprised in the county which is coterminous with or includes the Executive's area"".

No. 333, in schedule 3, page 132, line 17, leave out "county council" and insert "Authority".

No. 335, in schedule 3, page 133, line 14, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(a) in subsection (1)

(i) in paragraph (a) the words "whose area is either the whole or part of one county" shall be omitted, and for the words "county council" there shall be substituted the words "metropolitan county passenger transport authority for the county which is coterminous with or includes that Executive's area"; and
(ii) for the word -council" in each place where it occurs in paragraphs (b) to (d) there shall be substituted the word "authority";".

No. 337, in schedule 3, page 133, line 32, leave out paragraph 32.

No. 389, in schedule 7, page 150, line 31, column 3, leave out from "14(3)" to end of line 33 and insert—




"as it applies to Scotland, the words "for the designated area".".

No. 419, in schedule 7, page 154, line 16, at end insert—


"1985 c. 51.
The Local Government Act 1985.
In section 42(1)(c), the words "which is or was coterminous with a metropolitan county".


In schedule 12, paragraphs 1, 2, 3(2) and 4.


In schedule 14, paragraph
59(1)(e).".

Mr. Ridley: These amendments are all consequential on the enactment of the Local Government Act 1985. As the House knows, that Act became law after this Bill had left the House, and the amendments are a result of that Act now being on the statute book.
If any hon. Member wishes to ask about any particular amendment, I shall be happy to reply. However, it is a complex and technical story which I would spare the House if it does not wish to hear it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 25 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 37 agreed to.

New Clause

TAXI LICENSING: CONTROL OF NUMBERS

Lords amendment: No. 38, to leave out clause 16 and insert the following new clause—
16. The provisions of the Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages, as incorporated in any enactment (whenever passed), shall have effect—

(a) as if in section 37, the words "such number of and "as they think fit" were omitted; and
(b) as if they provided that the grant of a licence may be refused, for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted, if, but only if, the person authorised to grant licences is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet."

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take at the same time Lords amendment No. 381, schedule 6, in page 149, leave out lines 30 to 38 and insert—
"(3) Without prejudice to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to this Act, the grant of a taxi licence may be refused by a licensing authority for the purpose of limiting the number of taxis in respect of which licences are granted by them if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of taxis in their area which is unmet.—

Mr. Ridley: This group of amendments changes substantially clause 16 from the form in which it left the House. The main change is to the criteria according to which a district council may refuse to grant a taxi licence to limit the number of taxis, a rather convoluted provision that we had taken from the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which had attracted some adverse comment in this House and was the subject of litigation in the Scottish courts. It has been replaced by a much clearer set of words.
As well as that change to the criteria, the form in which they are expressed has been changed in response to constructive criticism in another place. The amendment to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is now made by reference rather than textually. Such a method of amendment is, generally, the inferior one, but in a case such as this—for which the antiquity of the statute is to blame— it produces a clearer result, and there is no need to refer to the interpretation Act or to the "prescribed distance", a concept which is a throwback to the last century.
I should perhaps emphasise that there is no fundamental change in policy. It is the Government's clear view that the restriction of numbers in any industry is justifiable only in the most exceptional circumstances and that the strict limits which many district councils have imposed have been bad for the trade and for its customers. The Bill opens the way for the taxi trade to expand into new markets, in particular those at shared fares. It would be a tragedy if it failed to take advantage of these opportunities, kept out new blood and remained wedded to the past. It would be

a tragedy if the only way someone could start a new small taxi business was to spend many thousands of pounds on buying someone else's plate.
The Bill does not, however, and never did, simply abolish quantity control. It allows a district council to refuse a licence application so as to limit numbers—as well, of course, as on grounds of unsuitability—but it puts the onus on the council of satisfying itself that there is no significant unmet demand. Any applicant who is refused a licence will be able to appeal to the Crown court, and I am sure that the court will test whether the council had good grounds for its refusal.
It will not be sufficient that the existing taxi trade says that it can cope or that it has always been the council's policy to have no more than, say, 87 taxis. If a new applicant intends to tap new markets—for instance, by running registered local services—I do not believe that any council could refuse the licence. But if there is demonstrably an over-supply of taxis in a district, as there may be in some cities, a licence could be refused.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify, in relation to the Scottish position, whether he is requiring district councils to review from time to time the number of taxis in their areas? He will be aware that I raised that matter in Committee.

Mr. Ridley: The amendment changes the wording of the Scottish measure so that the arrangements are the same as for England. Therefore, what I have been saying applies equally to Scotland.
I hope, therefore, that all district councils will review their policies and act liberally, as the law will require, and that we shall no longer see the sort of under-supply that has led to taxi plates changing hands at ridiculous prices. We shall, of course, monitor carefully what happens, and take everything into account in the review of taxi and hire car legislation that we shall undertake once the Bill has been implemented.

Mr. Matthew Parris: I argued in Committee, as did a number of other hon. Members, that the Bill as originally drafted, by a liberal interpretation of the Scottish wording, allowed a local authority effectively to bring back quantity control by the back door. The amendments will make it much more difficult for a local authority to bring back quantity control without good reason. Consequently, I welcome them.

Mr. Allan Rogers: What extra funds does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make available to local authorities for the monitoring of the position?

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues, in particular the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), for their responsive attitude when I brought to them a group of taxi drivers from my constituency. I am grateful for the consideration that Ministers have given to the points that were made and the way in which the Bill, as amended, will implement the requests that were made.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking on board many of the points that have been made during the passage of the Bill. I am certain that the way in which he has listened to the representations made by taxi drivers and licensed operators will be appreciated in that trade. I particularly welcome his


undertaking to review carefully what happens as a consequence of this legislation. That is important, because there is much scope for change and certain things may not go as planned. To have that undertaking for the future will give reassurance to this important trade.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I welcome the amendment. Its presence may have something to do with the fact that the noble and learned Lord Denning, as well as my noble Friend Lord Winchilsea, spoke on this issue in the other place. Common sense has at last prevailed in the description of the situation. For example, from the point of view of Liverpool, when all controls were removed, there were too many taxis on the streets with too few customers in them, and that led to much unrest and bickering between taxi operators.
Had the amendment not been proposed, I should have feared the worst in my constituency, certainly out of season. However, even in season, in Ryde esplanade and elsewhere, there would have been many arguments, because we already have too many taxis in competition. The amendment will introduce some balance into the situation, and for that it is to be welcomed.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) for their remarks. It is known that we shall be reviewing the whole of taxi legislation. That will be a mammoth task, but it will provide an opportunity to monitor the progress of this provision to see that it is operating correctly. As I said, we shall keep a close eye on it to make sure that all is well.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is that we, not the local authorities, will be doing the monitoring, so no question of extra expense for local authorities arises.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17

LONDON TAXI AND TAXI DRIVER LICENSING APPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 18, line 28, leave out from "to" to end of line 29 and insert "the appropriate court".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments:

No. 40, in page 18, line 38, leave out from "to" to end of line 39 and insert "the appropriate court".

No. 41, in page 18, line 40, leave out "a magistrates" and insert "the".

No. 43, in page 19, line 17, at end insert—
(10) In this section "the appropriate court" means the magistrates court for the petty sessions area in which the licensing authority has his office or, if he has more than one office, his principal office.

Mr. Mitchell: This group of technical amendments have the effect of changing the magistrates court to which appeals are to be made from that for the area in which the appellant resides to the court for the area in which the licensing authority has its office. It was pointed out in

another place that the previous arrangement might prove inconvenient in that many taxi drivers live well outside London. That is a valid point and we are making these amendments to improve a position that has been generally welcomed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful that at last we shall have got right a clause which we have long needed. The House will be aware that the system under which licences were revoked or suspended disappeared into a silent mist originally in the office of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. One could never get at the facts. The system is to be moved to the Department of Transport, and with this amendment we shall get it into the court structure so that somebody who has his livelihood taken away will be able to challenge the decision in an open place, know the evidence against him and be able to argue against that evidence.
The Under-Secretary of State has cleared up the problems which rendered it inappropriate for a person's case to be determined where he resided. It is to be welcomed that it will be possible to argue a case, if someone is to be deprived of his livelihood, in the place where he earns his livelihood. I hope this part of the statute will be implemented soon. I do not agree with every part of the Bill, but I think that this part of it is good. I hope that its implementation will not be delayed after the Bill becomes law, so that taxi and cab drivers may have justice.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that this is a good example of the many instances where the Bill has been improved in its passage through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 43 agreed to.

Clause 21

PERMITS UNDER SECTION 19:REGULATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 22, line 14, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment:

No. 280, in clause 117, page 114, line 8, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 11.

No. 281, in clause 118, page 115, line 13, at end insert 
;and in subsection (2) of that section (duty to consult before making regulations under section 59 or 60 of that Act) the words "section 59 or 60 of" shall be omitted".

No. 412, in schedule 7 page 153, line 9, column 3, at end insert—
In section 61(2) the words "section 59 or 60 of"

Mr. Mitchell: The amendments tidy up the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult representative organisations before making regulations under the 1981 Act or parts I or II of the Bill. They are technical, and I suspect that they will meet with the approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27

Limit ON NUMBER OF VEHICLES TO BE USED UNDER A RESTRICTED LICENCE

Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 24, line 22, after "not" insert
, except in any prescribed case or class or case, ".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is designed to recognise the special position of the Post Office, which runs a large number of post buses under restricted licenses. The Post Office, therefore, needs an exemption from the limitation of two to the number of vehicles that may be run under such a licence.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

OBJECTIONS TO APPLICATION FOR PSV OPERATORS' LICENCE

Lords amendment: No. 46, after clause 24, insert the following new clause—.
. —(1) After section 14 of the 1981 Act (Grant of licences) there shall be inserted the following section
"Objections to application for PSV operators' licence
14A.—(1) Where an application is made for the grant of a PSV operator's licence under this Act any chief officer of police or local authority may object to the grant of the licence on the ground that one or more of the requirements mentioned in section 14(1) and (3) of this Act are not satisfied in relation to the application.
(2) An objection under this section shall be made within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner and shall contain particulars of the ground on which it is made.
(3) The onus of proof of the existence of the ground on which an objection is made shall lie on the objector.
(4) In this section "local authority" means

(a) in England and Wales, the council of a county, district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London or a Passenger Transport Executive, and
(b) in Scotland, a regional or islands council.
(5) This section does not apply in relation to any application for a special licence (within the meaning of section 12 of the Transport Act 1985).

Read a Second time.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I
beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 6, after 'authority', insert
or any individual resident living in the area of the relevant traffic authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendment: No. 55, in clause 30, page 28, line 33, at end insert—
(2A) Where an application for a PSV operator's licence is granted under this Act and a person who duly made an objection to the grant under section 14A of this Act is aggrieved by the grant of the licence he may appeal to the Transport Tribunal.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Amendment No. 46 tends to put together some of the ingredients which were found in the Bill as it first came before the House. It highlights the absurdity and, indeed, farcical quality of much of the debate that has taken place.
Clause 22 of the original Bill included the perfectly sensible undertaking that those who wished to make representations to the traffic commissioners could do so

where they had reason to believe that those who were being considered for licences were not suitable. We then had an extraordinary element of humour in the Committee because, half way through Committee, Conservative Back Benchers discovered that the clause was dangerous and had to be taken out of the Bill. Ministers agreed with astonishing alacrity. It is obvious that they reconsidered the position and appreciated that there would be those who wished to give evidence to the traffic commissioners. After much humming and hawing, we have a milder, much weaker undertaking that provides that those who are involved with local authorities and the police can object. We think that is excellent.
Where there are environmental matters, it is important that local authorities should have a say. It is quite possible that the police will know something about prospective operators and their past records. However, those who may still be in the best position to weigh up the real impact of an application are other operators, members of the public or business men and professionals with local knowledge. They will be unable to object.
The Government repeatedly said that the Bill is about protecting the interests of the public. We know that that claim is totally hollow and that their aim is to break up efficient public enterprises so that their friends can take the profits on the good routes while casting the remainder to the winds and the few crumbs of subsidy that will be left.
If the Government really are a caring Administration who mean what they say, let them accept the amendment.

Mr. David Mitchell: The amendment to the amendment is undesirable—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Why?

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall explain. The amendment is undesirable because we must keep to the minimum the number of people able, by appealing against the grant of a licence, to prolong the time during which a new operator is uncertain whether he has a stable business or not. It is unnecessary, because if anyone—operators, suppliers or private individuals—has reason to know that an applicant for a licence does not satisfy the requirements as to good repute, financial standing and professional competence, and tells the traffic commissoner, the commissioner is bound to consider what he is being told. He cannot ignore the facts, if they are relevant, merely because the person has no formal status as an objector.
We considered this matter fully in Committee and there is nothing further which can be said. I have explained that the amendment is not desirable because it will cause delay and uncertainty. We want to encourage new operators. We do not wish to erect barriers to bar them, as the hon. Lady would. The hon. Lady would regulate everything out of existence if she had the opportunity to do so.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I think it will be noted by the general public that at a time when there are considerable worries about the safety of public vehicles, the Minister feels that there is no need to give the general public the right to make representations on important matters such as new operators and their suitability for licence.

Mr. Mitchell: I want the hon. Lady to be quite clear that she is completely wrong in what she has just said. There is nothing to stop the people to whom she is referring from making representations—

Mrs. Dunwoody: They have no standing.

Mr. Mitchell: They do not have the status of objectors which enables them to appeal against the traffic commissioner's findings, but they do have the right to make representations. The hon. Lady is entirely wrong to suggest that they have no right to do so.

Amendment (a) negatived.

Lords amendment No. 46 agreed to.

Clause 25

CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO PSV OPERATORS' LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 25, line 27, leave out "shall not" and insert "may"

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 49, in page 25, line 29, leave out from "subsection" to second "or" in line 31 and insert
if, but only if, it appears to him that the operator did not have a reasonable excuse for his conduct".

Mr. Mitchell: Under the clause as drafted the traffic commissioner may attach conditions preventing an operator from running local services in future if he has broken the registration rules, but he may do so only if the operator's conduct was intentional, reckless, dangerous or frequent. The amendment substitutes the words "without reasonable excuse" for "intentional or reckless". "Intentional or reckless" was taken from the 1981 Act, where it qualifies the circumstances in which a road service licence may be revoked because of breaches of conditions by operators. "Without reasonable excuse" is used in the clause which deals with loss of fuel duty rebate for contravention of registration rules, and is more modern and appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 49 and 50 agreed to.

Clause 26

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO PSV OPERATORS' LICENCES UNDER SECTION 25

Lords amendment No. 51: in page 26, line 19, leave out from beginning to "or" in line 22 and insert
if he, within the prescribed period, received a request for an inquiry from the holder of, or (as the case may be) applicant for, the licence.

Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 52, in page 26, line 22, leave out "or (b)" and insert—
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where the traffic commissioner

Mr. Mitchell: These are drafting amendments which clarify the circumstances in which the commissioner must hold an inquiry into conditions which he is attaching to an operator's licence.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 52 to 54 agreed to.

Clause 30

APPEALS UNDER THE 1981 ACT

Lords amendments No. 55 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 56, in page 29, line 25, at end insert—
(5A) Where a traffic commissioner has given a direction under subsection (5) above he may withdraw it at any time.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments:

No. 57. in page 29, line 27, after "above" insert "or withdraws such a direction".

No. 58, in page 29, line 28, leave out second "it" and insert "such a direction".

No. 59, in page 29, line 31. leave out "Subsections (3) to (7) above do" and insert "This section does".

No. 60, in page 29, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 43.

No. 61, in page 30, line 9, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 13 and insert—
(2) Where the refusal by a certifying officer or public service vehicle examiner to remove a prohibition under subsection (1) of section 9 of this Act (including a prohibition under that subsection as it applies by virtue of section 9A of this Act) has been referred to a certifying officer ("the referee") under subsection (8) of that section by a traffic commissioner, any person aggrieved by the refusal of the referee to remove the prohibition".

No. 62, in page 30, line 24, leave out from "officer" to "for" in line 25.

No. 63, in page 30, line 26, leave out
or public service vehicle examiner".

No. 375, in schedule 6, page 148, line 4, at end insert—
(2A) In section 9 (power to prohibit driving of unfit public service vehicles), in subsection (8), after the word "examiner", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or certifying officer" and for the words "by a certifying officer and" there shall be substituted—

"(a) in the case of a refusal by a public service vehicle examiner, by a certifying officer; and
(b) in the case of a refusal by a certifying officer, by another certifying officer;
and"."

Mr. Mitchell: This is a group of amendments to the clause which deals with appeals. The main change that the clause makes to the present law is to transfer appeals relating to PSV operators' licences from the Secretary of State to the transport tribunal. The amendments remove a right of appeal because a traffic commissioner has not reached a decision in a reasonable time. That was ill-defined and could have caused a tribunal much trouble.
The amendments also disapply anything relating to traffic regulation conditions, appeals on which go to the Secretary of State under clause 9. They also give the traffic commissioner the right to withdraw any stay of execution that he has granted pending an appeal, so that if one is withdrawn the operator affected can apply to the tribunal to have it granted.
Finally, the amendments tidy up the relationship between this clause and section 9 of the 1981 Act as to appeals against refusals to remove prohibitions on vehicles.
These are tidying-up amendments and do not represent any major change in policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 64 agreed to.

Clause 33

EXTENSION OF SAFETY CONTROLS TO CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES OTHER THAN PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES

Lords amendment: No. 65, in page 31, line 15, at end insert—
as it applies to a public service vehicle".

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:

No. 66, in page 31, line 16, at end insert—
motor vehicle as it applies to a public service".

No. 67, in line 17, leave out from "the" to the end of line 22 and insert "omission of subsection (4)".

Mr. Ancram: The substantive effect of these amendments is to make the penalty for driving a passenger vehicle with more than eight passenger seats, which has had a prohibition placed on it, identical irrespective of whether or not it is a public service vehicle. The penalty level is level 5, and it will be for the courts to fix penalties in the light of all the circumstances of an offence.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 66 and 67 agreed to.

Clause 34

LONDON LOCAL SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 31, leave out lines 27 and 28.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments:

No. 69, in page 31, line 32, after "Act" insert—
(a)"bus service" means a local service other than an excursion or tour: and
(b)".

No. 71, in clause 36, page 34, line 1, leave out under section 23(3) of this Act to

No. 73, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
(a) in the case of a proposal to which subsection (2) above applies, any part of the route in question or (as the case may be) the point, place or street in question;".

No. 74, in line 13, leave out "an existing bus service" and insert—
a proposal to which subsection (4) above applies".

No. 77, in clause 41, page 38 line 22, leave out
at the end of that period
and insert
, on the date on which a London local service licence is due to expire,".

No. 78, in clause 45, page 41, line 36, leave out
"London bus service" has the meaning
and insert
"bus service" and "London bus service" have the meanings".

No. 282, in clause 120, page 116, leave out lines 5 and 6.

Mr. Ancram: These are minor technical or drafting amendments to part II.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 71, agreed to.

Clause 35

PART II

LONDON LOCAL SERVICE LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 70, in page 32, line 7, leave out from "service" to end of line 9 and insert—
secured by the Board under section 4A of the 1962 Act (Board's power to secure the provision of bus services where a railway service has been temporarily interrupted or discontinued).".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments:

No. 105, in page 54, line 40, leave out from "apply" to end of line 41.

No. 258, in page 102, line 38, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 40 and insert—
(i) in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (iii) and".

No. 259, in page 103, line 36, leave out
in the Executive's area of any bus substitution service'
and insert
of any bus substitution service between places in the Executive's area or between such places and places outside that area but within the permitted distance for the purposes of section 10(1)(ii) of the 1968 Act as it applies to that Executive (that is to say, twenty-five miles from the nearest point on the boundary of that area).".

No. 260, in clause 105, page 104, line 41, at end
insert—
(4A) Where the proposed withdrawal of service relates to a service or part of a service which is subsidised by the Passenger Transport Executive for any passenger transport area under any agreement made with the Railways Board by virtue of section 104(3) of this Act, the Board shall not publish a notice with respect to the proposed withdrawal under subsection (1) above without the consent of the Executive to its publication.
(4B) If in any such case the Board publish such a notice before obtaining that consent, the notice shall be of no effect unless before the end of the period fixed by the notice for objecting to the revocation or variation of the relevant bus service condition either—

(a) the Executive have informed the Board in writing t hat they consent to the publication; or
(b) the Secretary of State, on an application made for the purpose by the Board (whether before or after the publication of the notice) and after offering the Executive what the Secretary of State considers a reasonable opportunity to make any representations, has directed that the notice shall have effect notwithstanding that the Executive have not consented to its publication."

Amendment (a) to proposed Lords amendment No. 260, leave out lines 9 to 22.

No. 261, in page 104, line 42, after "Where" insert—
("in the case of any proposed withdrawal of service subsection (4A) above does not apply but").

No. 262, in page 104, line 43, leave out "of service".

No. 263, in clause 106, page 105, line 22, leave out from beginning to "lodge" in line 25 and insert—
Where, in the case of any withdrawal of service to which section 105(4A) or (5) of this Act applies, notice of the


withdrawal has been published under subsection (1) of that section, the Executive concerned may, within the period specified in the notice for objecting to the withdrawal".

No. 264, in page 105, line 27, at end insert—
The fact that the Executive concerned gave their consent to the publication of the notice shall not affect their right under this subsection to oppose the withdrawal of service.

No. 265, in page 105, line 30, at end insert—
 "(8) References above in this section to a notice published under section 105(1) of this Act do not include a notice which under subsection (4B) of that section is of no effect.

No. 266, in clause 108, page 108, line 25, leave out 
"or" (in the third place where it occurs)
and insert
"and to the Bus Company"".

No. 372, in page 46, line 14, column 1, leave out 
"charges and licences".

No. 396, in page 151, line 11, column 3, leave out
"or" (in the third place where it occurs)
and insert
"and to the Bus Company"".

Mr. Mitchell: These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 70 corrects a drafting imperfection and exempts from London local service licensing not only permanent bus substitution services provided by BR, which under the clause as drafted are already exempted, but also any temporary BR bus services provided in London. This brings them into line with temporary replacement services outside London.
Amendments Nos. 105 and 258 are minor drafting improvements. Amendments Nos. 266 and 396 correct a technical imperfection to retain for the Secretary of State the power that he has under existing legislation to give directions to BR, LRT or LRT subsidiaries in connection with a closure consent. Amendment No. 372 simply corrects the description of the transport tribunal.
Amendments Nos. 259 to 265 ensure that the PTEs have the power to support bus substitution services, as they have under existing legislation to support rail services, and that where PTEs do support bus substitution services, their role in the case of a proposal by the board to withdraw the service is exactly parallel to that which they now have in relation to proposals to withdraw PTE-supported rail services.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 71 to 75 agreed to.

Clause 37

GRANT OF LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 76, in page 35, line 35, after "are" insert "elderly or".

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:

No. 99, in clause 57, in page 53, line 13, after "public" insert—
(including persons who are elderly or disabled)".

No. 100, in page 53, line 30, at end insert—
(6A) It shall be the duty both of the Authority and of the Executive for any passenger transport area, in exercising or performing any of their functions under the preceding provisions of this section, to have regard to the transport needs of members of the public who are elderly or disabled.".

No. 128, in clause 61, in page 60, line 36, after first "public" insert—
(including persons who are elderly or disabled)".

No. 129, in page 60, line 43, at end insert—
(8A) It shall be the duty of any council, in exercising or performing any of their functions under the preceding provisions of this section, to have regard to the transport needs of members of the public who are elderly or disabled.".

No. 130, in page 61, line 15, after "Act" insert—
, other than services provided wholly or mainly to meet the needs of members of the public who are elderly or disabled.".

No. 240, after clause 95, insert the following new clause—

>"Grants for transport facilities and services

.(1) Any authority to whom this section applies, or any two or more such authorities acting jointly, may make, in such cases and subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, grants to any other person towards expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that person in providing, maintaining or improving—
(a) any vehicle, equipment or other facilities provided wholly or mainly for the purpose of facilitating travel by members of the public who are disabled; or
(b) any equipment or other facilities specially designed or adapted for that purpose which are incorporated in any vehicle, equipment or other facilities not provided wholly or mainly for that purpose.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, any such authority, or any two or more such authorities acting jointly, may make, in such cases and subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, grants to any person providing public passenger transport services towards expenditure incurred or to be Incurred by that person for the purpose of—
(a) maintaining or improving facilities for public passenger transport, other than facilities provided wholly or mainly for use for the purpose of or in connection with excepted services; or
(b) facilitating or improving the operation of public passenger transport services, other than excepted services;
in the area of that authority or (as the case may be) in the area comprising the areas of both or all those authorities.
In this subsection "excepted services" means services for the carriage of passengers by road which require a PSV operator's licence (within the meaning of Part IV of this Act).

(3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to expenditure appearing to the authority or authorities in question to be of a capital nature.

(4) This section applies to the following authorities—
(a) any Passenger Transport Authority or Passenger Transport Executive;
(b) the council of any county or district in England and Wales;
(c) the council of a London borough or the common Council of the City of London; or
(d) any regional or islands council in Scotland.

No. 241, after clause 95, insert the following new clause

Grants by London Regional Transport — Grants for services for disabled people in London

.—(1) London Regional Transport may make, in such cases and subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, grants to any voluntary organisation for the purpose of meeting (in whole or in part) any expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that organisation for the purpose of the provision of transport services provided by that organisation solely to meet the needs ofdisabled members of the public resident in London.

(2) In subsection (1) above "voluntary organisation" means a body the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit, but does not include any public or local authority."

Amendment (a) to proposed Lords amendment No. 241, in line 3, leave out from 'Transport' to end of section and add
`shall make grants to any voluntary organisations that it thinks fit, in order to ensure the provision of adequate public transport facilities for disabled people with special needs..

No. 268, after clause 109, insert the following new clause—

The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

.—(1) There shall be established in accordance with this section a body to be known as the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

(2) The Committee shall consist of—
(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State; and
(b) not less than ten, nor more than twenty, other members appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with such bodies as appear to him to be representative of the interests of persons likely to be significantly concerned with matters within the competence of the Committee.

(3) The Secretary of State shall, so far as is reasonably practicable. secure that at all times at least half of the membership of the Committee consists of persons who are disabled.

(4) The Secretary of State may appoint one or more members of the Committee to be deputy chairman or (as the case may be) deputy chairmen of the Committee.

(5) It shall be the duty of the Committee to consider any matter, relating to the needs of disabled persons in connection with public passenger transport, which is referred to them by the Secretary of State or which they think it appropriate to consider without such a reference and to give such advice to the Secretary of State on any matter which they have considered as they think appropriate.

(6) The Committee shall make an annual report to the Secretary of State, who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.
("(6A) The Secretary of State shall from time to time issue guidance as to measures that may be taken with a view to—

(a) making access to vehicles used in the provision of public passenger transport services by road easier for disabled persons; and
(b) making such vehicles better adapted to the needs of disabled persons.
(6B) The Secretary of State shall consult the Committee before issuing any such guidance.")
(7) Schedule (the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Committee.".

No. 342, before Schedule 5, insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE

THE DISABLED PERSONS TRANSPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Administration, etc.

1. The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the Committee to be provided with such administrative support and office accommodation as he considers appropriate.

2. The Secretary of State shall provide the Committee with funds with which to pay to their members such travelling and other allowances, and to defray such other expenses in connection with their functions, as he may determine.

Constitution and procedure

3. — (1) Any person appointed to be a member of the Committee shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment and shall, on ceasing to be a member of the Committee, be eligible for re-appointment.

(2) Any person so appointed may at any time resign his office by written notice given to the Secretary of State.

4.—(1) The Committee shall meet whenever convened by the chairman and at least four times a year.

(2) Without prejudice to the discretion of the chairman to call a meeting whenever he thinks fit, he shall call one when required to do so by any five members of the Committee.

(3) Minutes shall be kept of the proceedings of every meeting of the Committee.

(4) Subject to the preceding provisions of this paragraph, the Committee shall determine their own procedure (including the quorum at their meetings).

5. The Committee may delegate the exercise and performance of any of their functions to such of their sub-committees as they think fit.

6. The validity of any proceedings of the Committee shall not he affected by any vacancy amongst the members, by any defect

in the appointment of a member or by any failure to comply with the requirement imposed by section (the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee) (3) of this Act.

(6A) The Secretary of State shall from time to time issue guidance as to measures that may be taken with a view to
(a) making access to vehicles used in the provision of public passenger transport services by road easier for disabled persons; and
(b) making such vehicles better adapted to the needs of disabled persons.
(6B) The Secretary of State shall consult the Committee before issuing any such guidance.".

No. 420, in the title, in line 7, after "concessions" insert—
to make further provision with respect to the powers of London Regional Transport".

No. 421, in line 11, after "1965" insert—
to establish a Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee".

Mr. Ridley: The Government have introduced a number of amendments and have accepted others designed to ensure that proper attention is paid to the needs of disabled people as users of public transport. It might be useful to the House if I deal with them briefly together, although of course I shall respond if anybody wishes to probe any of them further. One of the amendments may well give the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) an opportunity to do so.
As a whole, the amendments clarify the responsibilities of local authorities to provide new powers for the support of minibus services meeting the needs of elderly and disabled people, and for the provision of grants for vehicles, or modifications to vehicles, and give LRT a new power to support dial-a-ride services in London, establish a new disabled persons' advisory committee and place an obligation on me to issue guidance on the measures that can be taken to make vehicles more accessible to disabled people. Taken together, the amendments will lead to a real improvement in the way in which public transport meets the needs of disabled people.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I had hoped that the Secretary of State, in his new mood of reasonableness, would be happy to accept the amendment in our name. It would have made the matter simpler.
I had thought that the Secretary of State would not only accept that we need a committee to make recommendations, but make sure that it had some hope of seeing those recommendations adopted and brought into use. I had hoped that at long last the Secretary of State would accept that the amendments that we are proposing are constructive.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 77 to 80 agreed to.

Clause 47

TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS OF THE Bus COMPANY TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Lords amendment: No. 81, in page 43, line 13, after "Company" insert
or any subsidiary of theirs".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:

No. 82, in page 43, line 13, at end insert "or any such subsidiary".

No. 83, in page 43, line 17, leave out from "employment" to the end of line 18.

No. 88, in clause 53, page 49, line 3, after "maintenance" insert ", to any extent,".

No. 89, in page 49, line 4, leave out from "by" to "or" in line 6 and insert—
(i) any person who is or has been employed by the Company (or any subsidiary of theirs); or
(ii) a member of such a person's family;".

No. 90, in page 49, line 9, after "loss" insert "reduction or limitation".

No. 91, in page 49, line 11 at end insert—
(6A) Without prejudice to the generality of section 47(1)(c) of this Act, the arrangements there mentioned may include provision for the making by the Company of payments in compensation for any loss, reduction or limitation of any such concession, benefit or privilege as is mentioned in subsection (6) above to the extent that provision in respect of the loss, reduction or limitation is not made by virtue of that subsection.".

Amendment (a) to proposed Lords amendment No. 91, in line 3, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Amendment (b) to proposed Lords amendment No. 91, in line 6, leave out from 'privilege' to end of line 8 and add
`and must include provision for the maintenance of pension rights of equal value to those existing prior to implementation of the disposal programme'.

7 pm

Mr. Roger Stott: It is understandable that we have become a little confused, because of the rapid rate at which we are moving through the amendment paper. It might be as well if we slowed that pace and examined precisely what the other place has been doing in other major areas of concern.
Mr. Speaker's selection list has caused us some difficulty with respect to amendment No. 83, which is in this group of amendments. The Opposition are attempting to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment, but, because of the time factor, and because of the ludicrously tight guillotine, I do not intend to pursue our arguments on amendment No. 83, but will deal more specifically with our arguments on amendments (a) and (b) to proposed Lords amendment No. 91.
Our intentions are obvious. The pension provision for people in the National Bus Company is causing concern. There have been broadly two approaches to pension funds in privatisation plans—both maintaining some version of "no worsening" plans. In my industry, in British Telecom, privatisation meant that the entire pension fund was paid over en bloc. When the predecessor of the present Secretary of State decided to sell off Sealink, the staff remained in the British Rail pension scheme.
In the case of the NBC there will be no company left, because it is to be broken into smaller units, in line with the Government's competition theories. This means that there will be no large company with the resources to underwrite the current pension funds.
So long as the Government's predictions on inflation and investment returns are exactly correct, for the next 40 or more years, there will be no problem. The Government appear to want NBC staff to believe that this is possible. However, if in any one year there is a shortfall, pensions will have to be topped up from some other source. There

are two possible sources. The new staff of NBC paying into the fund is one source. That will end w hen NBC closes, thus turning the National Bus pension fund and BEST into "closed" funds.
The other guarantee was a straight payment from NBC. That will also go. We heard recently that the Government intend using some insurance companies to assist them in this dilemma. At present, 15,000 former employees and 10,000 staff dependants receive funds from the NBC pension fund. In addition, NBC had 51,000 staff at the end of April 1983. All those people who have been paying into the pension funds believe that their pensions will be cut and that the provisions will no longer be forthcoming.

Mr. David Mitchell: Nonsense.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman might say that that is nonsense, but he will have the opportunity later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to assuage some of the fears of people in the industry. In spite of what he may say, he has not yet done that. If he had done so, perhaps we would not have had the strike by bus men, which is the only way in which they could demonstrate their rejection of his pension proposals.
The amendments which were tabled in the other place provide for a guarantee by the Secretary of State that at normal retirement date, employees of the NBC or its subsidiaries will receive pensions no less than those which they were entitled to receive on the day the NBC was privatised. Lord Belstead said that this was calling for a guarantee which the Government could not give. He said:
It would be an open-ended commitment of taxpayers' money and in that respect it would go further than NBC does already." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1985; Vol. 467, c. 347.]
I remind the Secretary of State of the two examples that I quoted, I remind him of the employees in British Telecom who were former civil servants, then former public servants, and who now work for a private company. Their pension provision, from Civil Service status to public service status to private status, has been maintained and guaranteed, so the principle has been established. The people who were employed by Sealink are still members of British Rail's pension fund, so there has been no worsening of their position.
What does the Secretary of State propose to do with the employees' pension provisions in British Airways when it is sold to private enterprise? I understand that the Secretary of State has given a nod and a wink to the idea that their pension provisions will be secured and they will be looked after. If so, why will only people in the transport industry — the bus men and bus women who have worked in the industry all their lives—see their pensions at risk? That is why we have tabled these amendments.
I understand that in the case of NBC the Government propose to hand over the entire assets of the BEST pension fund to the Standard Life Assurance Company, which proposes to reduce the benefits already earned.

Mr. David Mitchell: Nonsense.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman may say that that is nonsense. We shall have to see on closer examination whether he can persuade us that that is the case. I remind him that sitting next to him is the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—who has been quoted on a number of occasions on this matter. She claimed that staff pensions would not be worsened by the


provisions of the Transport Bill 1982 and that it would be "wrong if it did". In 1985 that pledge has been broken. I do not know whether the hon. Lady can justify those claims, which were made when the position was put to her by not only the Labour Front Bench but by members of the transport industry.
These amendments on the pension fund issue are our last chance to put this matter right. Throughout the whole year of discussions on this wretched Bill there has been an acceptance of certain technical and drafting amendments. These amendments were "technical" and "drafting" to facilitate the lunacy of the Secretary of State. They were not in any sense a response to the sensible and orchestrated opposition to the Bill from almost every section of society. If the Secretary of State has any doubts about that, I can supply him with a Marplan poll concerning his proposals. He would get a big shock on seeing what people think about the ruination of co-ordination of transportation.
We are at the eleventh hour—it is almost midnight for the Bill. If we do not get any movement on the question of pension schemes for NBC staff, this will be to the immense electoral disadvantage of the Secretary of State and his party at the general election. I spent the summer travelling around the country talking to people employed in the transport industry. I talked to bus men and bus women in their garages and on their buses. I had big meetings in Dover and in Chippenham. I had meetings in the south of England, in the good underbelly of Tory Britain. The bus men were worried.

Mr. Ridley: What did the hon. Gentleman tell them?

Mr. Stott: I told them that their trustees did not accept the Government's scheme. The trustees of the NBC's pension scheme have rejected the Government's proposal.

Mr. Ridley: They do not know what they are talking about.

Mr. Stott: The Secretary of State says that they do not know what they are talking about. The right hon. Gentleman has the habit of leading with his chin. I hope that Hansard has got that intervention for posterity and that it is there for all to see. Sometimes I despair when I am trying to plead with the Secretary of State for common sense to prevail. We are asking for acceptance of amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 91 which we believe are in the spirit of what the hon. Member for Wallasey meant when she said that it would be wrong if there was a worsening of the position.
In Committee I said that people employed by the NBC had arrived at a point where their pensions were secure. Their pension entitlements have been negotiated by the trade union with their employer. It is not the employer or the trade union, but the Government who are moving the goal posts. The Government are changing the scene. It is not the fault of the NBC or the TGWU, but the fault of the Secretary of State. He has moved the goal posts and muddied the waters. If he has changed the ball game, he should accept responsibility to ensure that the pension rights are maintained.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I wish to support amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 91. Even at this late hour, I hope that we will have an explanation from the Government of whether the points just made from the Opposition Front Bench are right. I have read the debates

in the other place. Unfortunately, by four votes the final effort to pass something similar to the amendments was lost.
Lord Shepherd is a former chairman of the NBC and was no doubt briefed by the company. In the other place he said:
at the present moment the advisers to the trustees take the view that what the Government are proposing does not rank in any way equivalent to what the members themselves have subscribed for and would have expected to receive on the dissolution of the National Bus Company."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 1985; Vol. 467, c. 350.]
Is that right?
I am briefed by the manager of Southern Vectis, who, incidently, is a supporter of privatisation and is not completely opposed to the Bill. In a letter to me he said:
In the case of NBPF,"—
that is, the National Bus pension fund
ten major insurance companies have been approached by the Department of Transport but none would agree to carry on the existing basis of linking pensions to individual salary increases, and we in the Group feel that this is essential if existing pension rights are to be preserved.
In all other cases where nationalised companies have been privatised guarantees have been given by the Government to secure the pensions of current employees and existing pensioners.
I believe that we received that assurance in the other place, but I hope that it will be confirmed.
The letter from the manager of Southern Vectis continues:
I note from Lord Shepherd's speech on 14 October that Mrs. Lynda Chalker has said that it would be quite immoral for the government in any way to take such action as would reduce the benefits of a scheme.
The present proposals of the Government simply do not go far enough as they do not rank in. any way equivalent to what we ourselves have subscribed for and would have expected to receive on the dissolution of National Bus Company. What we are asking is that the government gives guarantees that are equivalent to guarantees at present given by the Trustees of the pension funds of the National Bus Company.
As I understand it, that is what the amendments seek.
I have had experience of what happens when companies are privatised. I am still suffering from the privatisation of Sealink. The latest problem is that pensioners' travel cards issued by British Rail are not being honoured by Sealink, although its competitors are allowing pensioners to travel free. Pensioners from the Isle of Wight have to pay to travel on Sealink although they can travel free on trains at either end of the boat journey. The manager of Sealink has taken a retrograde step about which I have complained bitterly.
That is the sort of thing that has happened, and that will no doubt happen again when the National Bus Company is broken up into smaller companies. The employees of the smaller companies should have priority to enable them to buy shares and take over the companies themselves. That was done with the National Freight Corporation. If it is not done with the National Bus Company, it will be disastrous. Some people want to get their hands on bus companies, not to provide a service to the public, but merely to make a profit. The managers and employees of the bus companies are entitled to a guarantee from the Government that their pensions are safe. We have not yet had that guarantee.

Mr. Parris: At the end of the day, NBC employees will receive a fair deal, but the Government seem to have


tied themselves into a Jesuitical knot so that they may give them that deal. As I understand it, for ideological reasons, the Government are unwilling themselves to offer an open-ended, "no worsening", guarantee to a private company. The Government are convinced that there will be no worsening. They want to arrange for the trustees of the pension fund to insure against there being any worsening. The premium for that insurance will have to be paid by the Government.
If insurance proves necessary, apparently it is to come out of the employers' contribution. If so, to the extent that that costs the employers money and commits them to future costs, it will reduce the price for which the National Bus Company can be sold, because it must be sold with the commitment to pay out of the employers' contribution a premium for an insurance scheme against any worsening of the pension scheme. In the end, through its reduced receipts on the sale of NBC, the Government will pay for an insurance policy to provide a guarantee which they themselves are unwilling, partly for ideological reasons, to provide.
If the Government are convinced that there will be no worsening and that the pension scheme is not threatened in any way, it would be cheaper for them to provide the guarantee themselves than to pay a private insurance company to provide it. They will be paying not only for the guarantee but for the BMWs owned by the directors of the insurance companies. All insurance is irrational, except insurance based on the belief that the insurers have incorrectly assessed the risks that are being insured against. If they succeed in persuading the NBC trustees to seek a guarantee privately, the Government will have tied themselves, as I said, into a Jesuitical knot.
Nor am I sure that the trustees will be right in purchasing the premium. Better use of the trustees' funds might be to put them straight into the pension scheme. If the trustees are convinced that the funds are not under threat, it is not right to use them to insure against a threat. It would be better for them to put the money towards the payment of pensions. At the end of it all I do not think that NBC employees have anything to worry about, so I shall support the Government.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: On most of the Bill, especially on the whole idea of privatisation, the Government have thrust upon us ideological views which we do not like, but we must accept that they have a majority.
The amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) seek to prevent the Government using bus men and bus women and their pension funds as pawns of the Government's political will. There is great anger among bus men and bus women about this. The Government will correct me if I am wrong, but I have never known a national strike, as today's action has been, about pensions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan has said, what can bus men and bus women do when no one will listen to them, their unions or their employers? The Government will not even listen to the employers, who have valiantly put the case for the preservation of existing pension rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan has pointed out that it is not the bus men and bus women, the NBC or even the trustees of the pension funds, but the

advisers to the trustees — actuaries and accountants versed for a lifetime in pension matters — who have stated categorically that the Government's proposals are worse than the existing scheme.
It is no answer for the Secretary of State to say, as he did, that those advisers do not know what they are talking about. I see the Under-Secretary of State nodding, but I am sure that all Members in the parliamentary pension fund would listen if I, as a trustee, told them what our advisers were saying, as opposed to what the Government's advisers were saying. The NBC and its employees feel exactly the same about what their advisers say.
The amendment merely seeks to ensure that bus men and bus women—drivers, conductors, inspectors, garage staff, the tens of thousands of people in the industry—should receive no worse treatment than the Government have provided when other industries have been privatised. There is no political polemic in this. We are simply fighting for present pension funds and levels of benefit to be preserved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan referred only to the NBC, perhaps due to lack of time. I wish to refer briefly to the PTEs and municipal companies. Their worry is expressed as follows:
The current Transport Bill makes provisions for PTEs and municipal transport undertakings to be set up as PLCS which will be deemed to be admissible bodies for inclusion in the Local Government Superannuation Fund. However, as the deeming option is not mandatory and is merely permissive there can be no guarantees that employees being transferred into their new companies will maintain future pension rights.
As a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, I realise that that case bears no comparison with that of the NBC employees, who are really done down by this option. I do not suppose that the Secretary of State will take any notice of the words of Lord Shepherd, a former chairman of the National Bus Company, who has stated without any hesitation that the attempted Standard Life scheme based on a guarantee of RPI plus 1·5 per cent. bears no comparison with the skilful management of the existing scheme, which is based on current wage levels.
If the Government cannot accept our amendments on this last day of term—I appreciate the difficulty in that respect—I plead with them to bring in legislation in the next Session to achieve justice and equity for people who have paid into pension schemes, many of them in private companies even before the NBC was set up, but whose pensions are now in jeopardy because the Government will give no guarantee that their position will not worsen as a result of the Bill.
The Conservatives know that they deal with pensions at their peril. When the Chancellor made noises and flew kites last year about attacks on pension schemes, all of us, and especially Conservative Members, were inundated with letters from people who feared that their pensions might be affected. When the present Secretary of State for Social Services says that he intends to review the state earnings-related pension scheme, the reaction from the country is enormous. The bus men and bus women of this country know that the Government may be tampering with their pension scheme. I must tell the Government that they do that at their peril.

Mr. Peter pike: I support the amendments because they seek to do what we have sought to do throughout the proceedings on the Bill—to secure a fair deal for people working in the bus industry.
The action taken by people in this industry today shows their clear belief that even at this late stage the Government have not provided the guarantee of fairness to which those employees are entitled. Last night's Lancashire Evening Telegraph quotes Mr. Marshall, general manager of the Burnley and Pendle area, on the subject of the strike. Like most of the employees, whether in management or on the buses, he is cynical about the Government's actions. He is reported as saying:
I believe the whole protest is futile
and
The Government will simply not commit the new bus companies to expensive pension schemes.
The article continues:
Mr. Marshall added that all pension payments made to the date of the introduction of the new bus companies next year would be fully safeguarded.
We are concerned not just about existing pensions, but about the future pension rights of people in the industry. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) said that the provision that we seek would reduce the selling price of the industry, but why should people working in the industry suffer so that the Government can obtain the maximum price? That is wrong and entirely unacceptable to Labour Members. Those employees should have the guarantees that we have sought for so long.
When the Bill is passed, the bus companies will have to go out to tender and they will face competition from people who do not have to comply with any conditions of employment or service. They will have to face competitors who do not provide adequate pensions, sick pay and all the other benefits to which workers are entitled. It stands to reason, therefore, that the NCB, the PTEs and the municipal undertakings will not be able to win tenders and to remain in business if they do not compete on equal terms. Indeed, the NBC has already withdrawn from the National Joint Council for the Omnibus Industry because it knows that it will have to worsen the conditions of its employees.
7.30 pm
Pensions are important, and more and more people are taking this issue extremely seriously. We know that if the state earnings-related pension scheme is abolished or phased out, the two categories hardest hit will be women and manual workers. People in the bus industry will lose in two ways. They will not have the benefit of a backup from SERFS and a guaranteed minimum pension, and they will also lose their existing scheme. We must take notice of what the trustees and advisers have said, and we must recognise that the trustees have a statutory duty to ensure that the maximum benefit is preserved for the people whom they represent—the employees, those who are already on pension and those who will be on pension in the future.
The amendment is reasonable and fair. Even at this late stage the Government should wake up and accept it. In Committee, a number of hon. Members expressed sympathy, and made all the right sounds, but when it came to the vote they supported the Government. I fear that they will do the same today. I shall be surprised if the Secretary of State for Transport says that he is prepared to accept the

amendment, however fair and justified it may be. He is not a reasonable man, and I cannot believe that he will accept the amendment.

Mr. Bob Clay: I echo the remarks of my hon. Friends when I say that these are unique circumstances. The House, as I understand it, will for the first time be effectively passing legislation which will worsen people's pension prospects. However objectionable previous privatisations may have been, at least pension rights were secured.
My hon. Friends are correct to say that today's industrial action reflects the anger and incredulity which has built up over the last few months among many people in the bus industry. They were opposed to many aspects of the Bill and were staggered by the inanity of much of it. They were opposed to privatisation, but they nevertheless believed that it would be inconceivable for the Government not to leave their pensions "no worse off". Even in the past few days, while the Bill was in another place, it dawned on people that the Government are seriously and cynically not prepared to protect those pensions.
People in the bus industry have expressed anger and incredulity; they do not know what has hit them. They feel outraged that they have been robbed. They are being robbed of all they have contributed over many years—over a whole lifetime in the industry in many cases—by the Government's refusal to creat a "no worse off' position.
Those circumstances are not unique to pensions. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State and his colleagues sincerely believe the nonsense that they have talked about the protection of pensions, and other matters, throughout the Bill's long and sordid history. When the Secretary of State replies I shall ask myself whether he believes the nonsense—the Jesuitical nonsense as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) described it in a Jesuitical speech—that in some obscure way there is protection.
It is extraordinary, as my hon. Friends have said, that the trustees can say that there is no protection, and that the National Bus Company management, from the most senior to the most junior level up and down the country, and everyone involved can say that the assurances given are meaningless and do not create a "no worse off' position.
The Secretary of State has the arrogance to say that the experts do not know what they are talking about and that the whole world does not know what it is talking about. That statement is made by a man who has been in and out of the courts in the past few months and who has been found to have acted illegally on one occasion after another in his job as Secretary of State for Transport It is extraordinary that someone who has had such a career in the courts with so many judgments against him has the audacity to come here tonight and say that the pension fund trustees do not know what they are talking about when they advise National Bus Company employees.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said, this matter involves not just the NBC. I have an interest in the matter. I am glad that when I came here, I opted to transfer my service as a previous PTE employee in the local government superannuation scheme into the House pension fund. If I had not done that and had retained my service, I should be worried about what would happen.


A clause which states merely that something "may be" held in a local government superannuation fund is nothing like the same as a clause which says that it "must be" held.
The Secretary of State must be aware that local managers in various parts of the country, not just in the NBC but in PTEs and municipalities, are already saying informally and, in some cases, formally, to their trade unions, "You know that we shall be unable to maintain the value of pensions. We are not certain that the future company will stay in the local government superannuation scheme. It will depend upon the competition. If we are competing with people who do not provide that kind of pension, how do you expect us to provide it?" That gives the lie to the assurances that are being given by the Government. They must be aware of that, and of the fact that those things are being said.
The Government must also be aware that all the nonsense that was talked about the Bill creating employment has already been given the lie because Northern General Transport, even before the Act has received the Royal Assent, has formally told its trade unions that it will dismiss 25 per cent. of its staff. That is a most extraordinary example of how all the nonsense that was discussed in Committee and on Report is contradicted by what is already taking place.
I recall the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) making a long and detailed speech on Report in which he took apart every detail of the misleading impressions being given by the Under-Secretary and others. He quoted chapter and verse. He said that many of the things that the Minister claimed that he had said or written were untrue. The hon. Member said that the only way he could conclude that what was happening was not fraud was to assume that it was gross incompetence. That came from a Conservative Member. He was listened to by two or three other Conservative Members, two of whom voted with the Opposition, as did the hon. Member for Wellingborough. However, when the Bell rang, the Lobby fodder came flooding through to defeat the Opposition amendments. No doubt the same will happen tonight.
Bus men, bus women and many other workers will notice the House's final disgusting hypocrisy. It has its own pension scheme, which must be one of the best available to anyone anywhere. In July 1983, the House improved that pension scheme but it is apparently not going to find itself able tonight to prevent the Government from robbing NBC, PTE and municipal employees of their pension rights.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: We do not need a nasty turn of mind to consider what the Secretary of State has in store for the transport workers. Wherever he goes there is despondency, unhappiness and misery. The workers tremble whenever the Prime Minister suggests a new office for him. There is heartache in the country because the people know his state of mind. We do not need a nasty approach because there is the record.
It is the Secretary of State's Bill. He listens to no one. All the advice that has been made available to him has been swept aside. He has arbitrarily deprived transport industry workers of their pension expectations and rights. He has a responsibility to tell the House what is inhibiting him from acting reasonably. What is stopping him from applying a provision for the maintenance of pension rights

for transport workers in the same way as it has been accorded to other people who have gone into the private sector? What actuarial basis is there for his resistace to what is reasonable?
How many Conservative Members will go to their constituencies this weekend—there is plenty of time, as we prorogue tomorrow — and address the transport undertakings that will be privatised? Will they say to them, "We fought for your pension rights," or "We spoke in Standing Committee," or "We spoke in the House of Commons"? Will they say that they put the case sympathetically on their behalf? But they will omit to say that they went into the wrong Lobby.
What is the position of the Conservative party—the caring party, as they like to tell the nation, but the uncaring party, as the nation has learned? Having taken that arbitrary action, is not the Secretary of State conscience striken that he has not taken the opportunity that was there for other people transferred from the public sector to private enterprise? The opportunity to do what is right for transport workers is there, but for some reason he is not taking it.
The House is entitled to know the position. Either there are some strong arguments that we have not yet heard that support his view or there is a doctrinal, rigid or dogmatic approach, in which the Secretary of State has shown no sensitivity. We have reasonable men and women working in the transport industry and some of the highest standards of transportation in the public sector. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the havoc that will come from privatisation.
There is an employment problem for the workers in the transport industry, apart from their pension problem. All at once the Conservative Government have decided that there must be a state of unsettlement in the transport industry and a state of denial for the workers. Is some spite or prejudice being exercised here? Although I do not agree with the principle of privatisation, why is the favourable, sustainable, and reasonable treatment for one section of the public service that has been transferred to the private sector not applied to another? Why are the Government behaving differently towards so many thousands of people who provide an excellent public service for their community?
Let me put in a caveat. Privatisation has caused problems on our roads. There is an inquiry going on, so I cannot comment on it, but we must bear in mind the consequences of the transport measures we have had in the past two or three years. We not only have congestion on the roads but the Government's expression of concern is constipated. The Government will not respond to reasonable submissions in Standing Committee and elsewhere, to get the best out of the Government's overall principle, that come hell or high water they will privatise. The Minister could get his own way on privatisation, but he must respond to the consequences, and if he believes that some people will suffer when he does not intend them to suffer, let him say so.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House those things now, because Conservative Members have to go to their constituencies? I hope that all the transport workers will nobble them. Two years after the vote, they might have got over it. Conservative Members are entitled to learn from the Secretary of State what is the case for not giving the transport workers their pension rights, no more or less than before. We are not asking for any hand-outs. We are


asking for nothing other than what has been actuarially decided upon — a valuable pension scheme, to be sustained when the Secretary of State hit transport workers out of the public sector into the private sector.
Will the Secretary of State spell out the reasons why he cannot allow us to have this reasonable amendment? Are there any practical difficulties, or has he decided, meaning that that is the end of the matter?

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I shall be extremely brief, because the arguments on both sides have been more than adequately rehearsed and because I am sure many hon. Members will be keen to get off to their supper.
I appreciate the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his correspondence to me on this subject. Despite that, rightly or wrongly, much concern has been expressed in my constituency over the pensions issue. Bus men from depots in Langley Mill and Alfreton have taken a great deal of trouble courteously to explain and put their fears to him. I accept, although there are strong arguments on both sides, that their concern is genuine and not politically motivated. I feel that my right hon. Friend should have given the same guarantees to National Bus workers as were given to workers after previous denationalisations. Therefore, I shall not support the Government in this case, although I must say that the specious arguments of Opposition Members nearly made me change my mind.

Mr. David Marshall: It is absolutely astounding that some hon. Members should give their supper a higher priority than workers' pension rights. However, I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has decided that he cannot support the Government on this issue.
The points against the Government have all been made by my hon. Friends. It is scandalous for any Secretary of State to treat any group of workers in this fashion, particularly considering that many thousands of transport workers have given a lifetime of loyal service to the public transport industry. It is scandalous that they will not even be allowed to retire with the guarantee of a decent pension. In some areas, with certain provisions, they might have the pension rights that we are seeking to guarantee, but that will be left to local variants, and in many cases they might not have proper pension rights.
I should like to re-emphasise the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) in respect of PTE employees. I welcome the fact that the PLCs that will be set up will be deemed to be admissible for inclusion into the local government superannuation scheme. However, the failure to make that mandatory is unjust and heartless to the extreme. If it is worth while to include the provision in the Bill, why not make it mandatory? I appeal to the Secretary of State, even at this late hour, to make it mandatory. If he cannot do it tonight, will he take steps to do it as soon as possible? If not, why not? How can he justify such a cruel decision? Can he not change his mind at the last minute and make the provision mandatory?

Mr. Ridley: I want to make it clear that I thoroughly share the views of all hon. Members that this is a very

important matter, which has been rightly discussed at every stage during the Bill's progress both in the House and in another place. I want to try once more to persuade Opposition Members that they have not entirely grasped what is going on and that they are wrong in many of their allegations.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) referred to local government pensions. It is clear that they do not understand that any accrued rights of bus men employed in local government are safeguarded. Accrued rights for past service will remain in the local government scheme up to the time of seperation.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) was wrong when he said that he had been wise to move his pension into the House of Commons scheme. It. would have been equally safe in the local government scheme. We are discussing future arrangements for local government pensions, not accrued rights. That is an illustration of how some hon. Members have not grasped the point.
Future benefits in the National Bus Company are a different issue. The debate has been about accrued rights in the NBC scheme.
It is not our policy to affect any existing pension rights—that is, pension entitlements that employees have already earned and paid for through their contributions. The Bill contains nothing that would have that effect, and it would be wrong if it did." — [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 March 1982; c. 345.]
Since many hon. Members have quoted my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I should tell the House that that is a quotation from her speech on the 1982 Bill. I feel that I am justified in repeating it in this debate.
I shall take a little time to go through what has happened, because I am sure that hon. Members mean it when they say that they want to be reassured. Throughout I have stressed the importance of ensuring that the assets of the funds are adequate to meet their liabilities. It is the Government's clear undertaking to ensure that any deficiencies in the funds are eliminated at the time of privatisation following a fresh actuarial valuation on a prudent and reasonable basis. In Committee, many hon. Members and trustees did not think that that was sufficient assurance. They argued that something further should be done so that trustees would have more security to offer their members. Always helpful, I proposed that private sector insurance of the fund should be examined. I did that on Report, and not recently, as the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) alleged.
That insurance is not in some way purchased by the Government, as the hon. Member seemed to suggest. It is a way by which the trustees could seek to ensure that their funds are adequate for their responsibilities for many years to come. Throughout the summer recess my Department and the trustees of the NBC and their advisers pursued these matters with insurance companies. The result has been that private sector insurance is available to assure present funds at a price within their reach. In other words, it should be possible for the trustees to provide for members one or more of the household names in the insurance industry as security for the benefit that members have built up. That option is now available.
Nevertheless, the trustees faced further difficulties. They might want to purchase the insurance now, which would have the effect that the House wants, but how could


they be sure that they could also cover by insurance the extra benefits that would accrue in the scheme over the next few years until privatisation is completed? Indeed, it might also be difficult to buy insurance straight away because some of the pension funds' assets, particularly property, might be difficult to realise and to turn quickly into cash to pay to the insurance company. Those difficulties were encountered during the summer.
However, the Government met the problem by making an offer to the trustees through the NBC and proposed that the company should make cash available to the trustees, in the form of a bridging loan, so that they could purchase insurance now if they wished, although they may not have sufficient liquid assets to do so.
We further proposed that the NBC should make available, through the employer's pension contributions, such further finance as may be necessary to ensure insurance cover over the next few years up to the end of the disposal programme. In this way, the trustees can now offer their members the certainty that has been asked for by hon. Members throughout our proceedings on the Bill. It is now available to the trustees to offer as they wish.
I take exception to the hon. Members who have alleged that accrued rights will be cut down, eroded or threatened. Worse still, Mr. Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union was asked on Radio Four last week:
But they won't lose the benefits that they've already accrued?
He replied:
Yes, in some instances there will be massive reductions of the pension benefits already earned by people employed in the National Bus Company.
That is not so, as I have demonstrated. It cannot be so. When the leader of the union says that there will be massive reductions in benefits, I do not find it surprising that great alarm, fear and despondency have been stirred up among bus men about their pensions.

Mr. Stott: I am listening closely to the Secretary of State. The kernel of the issue is whether the trustees, who are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the NBC pension fund is adequate for the purposes for which it was set up, accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the new plan that he has devised.

Mr. Ridley: I will answer that question, but I wish first to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris). In a sense, he is right, in that the commitment to buy insurance will cost something, which will increase the financial exposure of the NBC and thus of the Government. However, I have always made it clear that the Government were prepared to ensure that sufficient money was made available to ensure the adequacy of the pension fund. This is the form in which such a pledge will be implemented if that is what the trustees decide to do.
My hon. Friend's argument is faulty, because if the Government gave a guarantee at the taxpayers' expense, that would save the insurance premium, but the saving would go not to the Government, but to the fund and, therefore, it would be an unequal transaction.
We think it right to propose that the benefits in one of the schemes, which are currently linked to average national earnings, should instead be linked to the rise in

retail prices plus 1·5 per cent. and not just to the rise in the retail price index, as Mr. Morris and some Opposition Members seem to think.
I have had an analysis done of which has been better over the past 10 years—the earnings index or retail prices plus 1·5 per cent. In five of the years, one was better and in the other five years, the other was better. I believe that the difference is equivalent. It would make the insurance more cost effective and it would give the fund member the certainty of a fixed percentage over and above prices. The benefits to be obtained from the insurance option are at least equivalent, therefore, and in many circumstances could be said to be better. One of those circumstances would be if we ever had the disaster of an Alliance or a Labour Government. I am certain that we would all rather have 1·5 per cent. more than RPI, than earnings under them. There could be many times when it would be wiser to go for RPI plus 1·5 per cent.
8 pm
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred to the advisers to the pension fund trustees. I think that he was trying to make the point that the Department's suggestion on how to secure insurance might lay them open to legal challenge. I can only tell him that my legal advice is that that is not so. I do not know of advice other than that which they have received, but I can say that this basic choice exists for the trustees, because it is they who are responsible for these funds and for paying the pensions, the accrued rights. They can take some form of insurance option to give that extra security which many hon. Members have sought, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) prominent among them.
Or the trustees will be able to say, "We are better fund managers and we can be sure that the funds that we have set up will be adequate to provide that security because we believe that we are cleverer than an insurance company." Then they will have taken the responsibility to themselves. The responsibility in this matter lies not with the Government but with the trustees of the pension funds.
This brings me to all the examples quoted by the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Benches — British Telecom, British Airways, Sealink and many other firms that have been or will be privatised. In not one single case has a Government guarantee been given to the pension fund. It has always been recognised that the trustees are the people who are responsible. In no case has a Government guarantee be given nor will it be given in the future. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) is therefore quite wrong. These employees are receiving treatment which is identical to that given to the pension assets of every other group of privatised workers.
I could say that we have gone far further in relation to the bus men's pensions than with any other group of privatised workers because we have taken immense trouble to facilitate the provision of insurance, if they wish it, and to make sure that the funds will be adequate to buy that insurance, if that is what the trustees prefer.
An occupational pension is not a pension produced or guaranteed by Government, not even in the nationalised industries. Even if the National Bus Company were to remain in the public sector, the Government would not guarantee its pension funds. There is, therefore, a complete difference between what the Opposition are


seeking, which is a Government guarantee of a private pension fund, and the reality of security, which is what the bus men actually want.
The measures that I have outlined give the option of that very full security. I should have thought it more likely that some of the great insurance companies of this country would still be solvent long after the country had gone bankrupt under a Labour Government. I would rather have a guarantee from the Standard Life company than from any conceivable Labour Government. If we are talking about security, that is where security comes. I will therefore ask Opposition Members to stop trying to frighten the bus men, to make them fear for their own pensions, in order to make these cheap political points against the Bill. I ask the House to reject their amendments.

Mr. Stott: Although this has been a very interesting debate, sadly we have made little progress in persuading the Secretary of State of the very genuine fears in the industry regarding pension provisions. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris), to use his own phraseology—turned round on him by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay)—made a very Jesuitical speech. Those of us who have served on Standing Committees with him over the past few years are used to his making that kind of speech. He is a past master at walking on barbed wire. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, (Mr. Craigen), he is the only person who could talk himself out of his own arguments. There was more than a grain of truth in what the hon. Gentleman said, and in his approach to this serious matter he demonstrated the way in which, in conscience, he ought to vote on this issue.
Not so his hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) who is taking the middle road out of all this. He believes neither the Secretary of State nor me, so he will not support either of us. He will sit on his hands. If he thinks that that is going to save him from ignominious defeat at the next election, I must tell him that it will not because there is a great deal of resentment among people in the transport industry.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: If the hon. Member is a sporting man, I will be quite happy to take a bet on his statement.

Mr. Stott: We will see about that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have as much concern, or more concern, with this matter and the other matters that we will debate before 10 o'clock, when I have to go to my supper.
The Secretary of State has outlined the way in which he has moved. I concede that he has moved on this matter. He has moved because he has been forced to do so, because we have highlighted the difficulties and the seething resentment about this matter in the transport industry. Yet the Secretary of State has still not got the message. I will put a forthright question: do the trustees of the National Bus Company's pension fund accept what he says and agree with him? They do not. They do not believe that what he proposes will be beneficial to the members of the pension fund.
The Secretary of State had the audacity to say that he had taken legal advice. This is the man who has been before the courts of this country, not once, not twice, but three times, on the legal advice of his officials, and been found guilty on every count of being irrational and irresponsible and of acting illegally. Even today, the High

Court has overturned his own legal advice on an appeal against the GLC lorry ban. We cannot take seriously the Secretary of State's legal advice or the way in which he interprets these matters.
We have tried persuasion. We have tried argument. We have tried to put forward the views expressed to us by the thousands of people who will be affected by this legislation. The Secretary of State has taken no notice of the most important issue concerning them. I am left with no option but to invite my hon. Friends to come into the Lobby with me and vote in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Perhaps it would be helpful if I remind the House that we are now dealing with Lords amendment No. 81. I will ask the hon. Gentleman, when we get to amendment (a), which will be after the Lords amendment No. 90, to move the amendment formally for a Division.

Question put and agreed

Lords amendments Nos. 82 and 83 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 84, in page 44, line 38, after "under" insert "the preceding provisions of'.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 85, in page 44, line 38, at end insert—
(12) The Secretary of State may by order dissolve any company which is a subsidiary of the Bus Company and incorporated by local Act or by an order under the Light Railways Act 1896.
(13) An order made under subsection (12) above may provide for the disposal of any remaining property, rights or liabilities of the company dissolved and may contain such supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions (including the repeal of any statutory provision) as appear to the Secretary of Stare to be necessary or expedient.

Mr. Mitchell: The amendment deals with some remnants of history. It provides the Secretary of State with an order-making power to disolve subsidiaries of the NCB that are statutory companies constituted under local Acts of Parliament or an order under the Light Railways Act 1896. There are three such NCB subsidiaries. All are dormant companies, and it is highly unlikely that any private purchaser would want to acquire them, particularly as at least one of them would have a duty to provide certain services. The preferred solution is therefore to dissolve them by order.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 85 agreed to.

Clause 49

THE Bus COMPANY'S POWERS OF DISPOSAL

Lords amendment: No. 86., in page 46, line 12, leave out from beginning to first "the" in line 13 and insert "any subsidiary of theirs".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 87, in page 46, line 15, leave out "any of their subsidiaries" and insert "that subsidiary".

Mr. Mitchell: These are drafting amendments to simplify clause 49(3) which enables the NCB to set up an


employee share scheme when it disposes of a subsidiary. The clause inadvertently provides for an employee share scheme to be established in one subsidiary as part of the sale of a different subsidiary. Therefore, the amendments are necessary to remove that anomaly.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 87, 88, 89 and 90 agreed to.

Clause 53

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 91, page 49, line 11, at end insert—
(6A) Without prejudice to the generality of section 47(1)(c) of this Act, the arrangements there mentioned may include provision for the making by the Company of payments in compensation for any loss, reduction or limitation of any such concession, benefit or privilege as is mentioned in subsection (6) above to the extent that provision in respect of the loss, reduction or limitation is not made by virtue of that subsection.".

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 3, leave out 'may' and insert `must.—[Mr. Stott.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 234.

Division No. 306]
[8.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Deakins, Eric


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Dixon, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dormand, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Douglas, Dick


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dubs, Alfred


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eadie, Alex


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Faulds, Andrew


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Forrester, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foster, Derek


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bruce, Malcolm
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Godman, Dr Norman


Campbell, Ian
Golding, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gourlay, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Clarke, Thomas
Hardy, Peter


Clay, Robert
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cohen, Harry
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Craigen, J. M.
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Howells, Geraint


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Janner, Hon Greville





John, Brynmor
Penhaligon, David


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Pike, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Charles
Radice, Giles


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, M.


Lambie, David
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Lamond, James
Richardson, Ms Jo


Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ronald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rooker, J. W.


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Loyden, Edward
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Hugh
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Soley, Clive


McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McTaggart, Robert
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Martin, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Maxton, John
Torney, Tom


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meacher, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Michie, William
Welsh, Michael


Mikardo, Ian
White, James


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wilson, Gordon


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Nellist, David
Woodall, Alec


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wrigglesworth, Ian


O'Brien, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Neill, Martin



Park, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Sean Hughes and


Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Pendry, Tom



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Hon Adam


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carttiss, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Chope, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Churchill, W. S.


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, William
Cockeram, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Conway, Derek


Blackburn, John
Cope, John


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Corrie, John


Bottomley, Peter
Crouch, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Brinton, Tim
Dunn, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Durant, Tony


Browne, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Bruinvels, Peter
Evennett, David






Eyre, Sir Reginald
Murphy, Christopher


Fallon, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Fletcher, Alexander
Nicholls, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ottaway, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Galley, Roy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Glyn, Dr Alan
Pollock, Alexander


Gower, Sir Raymond
Portillo, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Gregory, Conal
Powell, William (Corby)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Powley, John


Grist, Ian
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Ground, Patrick
Price, Sir David


Grylls, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Raffan, Keith


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rhodes James, Robert


Harris, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hayward, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Heddle, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rost, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rowe, Andrew


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Irving, Charles
Ryder, Richard


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Lawler, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speed, Keith


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Spencer, Derek


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin


Luce, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Nicholas
Stern, Michael


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Maclean, David John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McQuarrie, Albert
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Major, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malone, Gerald
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Terlezki, Stefan


Mather, Carol
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Maude, Hon Francis
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mellor, David
Thurnham, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tracey, Richard


Miscampbell, Norman
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Waddington, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moore, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Walden, George


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waller, Gary





Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Watson, John
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wheeler, John



Whitfield, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Raymond
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendments No. 91 and 92 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 93, in page 51, line 32, after "(5)" insert
, as it applies to England and Wales

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Lords amendments: No. 94, in page 51, line 34, at end insert—
(bb) in subsection (5), as it applies to Scotland, for the word "designated" there shall be substituted the worth "passenger transport";".
No. 96, in page 52, line 16, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 17.
No. 334, in page 133, line 9, after ("1") insert ("(a)to (d) and (f)")
No. 401, in page 152, line 10, after "paragraphs 1" insert "(a) to (d) and (f)"

Mr. Ridley: These amendments reinstate section 9(5) of the Transport Act 1968. That provision, which allows district councils to assist a PTE, and vice versa, was proposed to be repealed as it applies to Scotland because Scottish district councils no longer have transport functions. However, as a result of representations from the Strathclyde PTE, that under this power they enter into agreements with district councils for such matters as the cleaning and maintenance of bus shelters, it was decided to reinstate section 9(5) for Scotland, with a minor drafting change to alter the description of the area from "designated" to "passenger transport".

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 94 to 96 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 52, line 19, leave out second "section" and insert "sections"

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Lords amendments: No. 101, in page 54, lime 26, after "section" insert
and section 9B of this Act
No. 103, in page 54, line 29, leave out "to the operator or and insert
(b) references in this section and that section to the operator of, or to persons operating
No. 104, in page 54, line 31, insert new clause—Consultation and publicity with respect to policies as to services.—
. — (1) When considering from time to time the formulation of policies for the purposes of section 9A(1) of this Act, the Authority for a passenger transport area shall consult—

(a) with every Passenger Transport Authority, county council or regional council whose area may be affected by those policies; and
(b) either with persons operating public passenger transport services with in their area or with organisations appearing to the Authority to be representative of such persons;
and where the passenger transport area is in England and Wales the Authority shall also consult with the councils of the districts


comprised in that area about the requirements for transport arising out of or in connection with the exercise and performance by those councils of their functions as local education authorities or of their social services functions.
(2) As soon as practicable after any occasion when they formulate new or altered policies for those purposes, the Authority concerned shall publish a statement of all policies so formulated by them on that or any previous occasion which for the time being apply in relation to the performance by the Executive for their area of their duty to secure services under section 9A(3).
(3) When the Authority publish such a statement, they shall send a copy of the statement—

(a) to each Authority or council whom they were required to consult under subsection (1)(a) above; and
(b) to each of the persons or (as the case may be) organisations whom they consulted under subsection (1)(b) above;
in relation to the formulation of their policies on the occasion in question.
(4) The Authority shall also—
(a) cause a copy of the statement last published by them under subsection (2) above to be made available for inspection (at all reasonable hours) at such places as they think fit; and
(b) give notice, by such means as they think expedient for bringing it to the attention of the public, as to the places at which a copy of that statement may be inspected.""inspected."
Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 104, after subsection (1)(b), insert—
(c) with persons resident in the areas affected by such policies".
No. 125, in clause 61, page 59, line 43, at end insert—
(3A) In formulating policies under subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) above with respect to the descriptions of services they propose to secure under subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a) above, a council shall have regard to any measures they are required or propose to take for meeting any transport requirements in exercise or performance of—

(a) any of their functions as a local education authority or (as the case may be) as an education authority; or
(b) any of their social services or (as the case may be) social work functions."
No. 126, in page 60, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
No. 132, after clause 61. insert the following new clause — Consultation and publicity with respect to policies as to services—
.—(1) When considering from time to time the formulation of policies for the purposes of section 61(1)(b) or (2)(b) of this Act, any council to whom either of those provisions applies shall consult—

(a) with every Passenger Transport Authority, county council or regional or islands council whose area may be affected by those policies; and
(b) either with persons operating public passenger transport services within their area or with organisations appearing to the council to be representative of such persons;
and where the council's area is in England and Wales the council shall also consult with the councils of districts comprised in their area.
(2) As soon as practicable after any occasion when they formulate new or altered policies for those purposes, any such council shall publish a statement of all policies so formulated by them on that or any previous occasion which they propose for the time being to follow in the performance of their duty to secure services under section 61(1)(a) or (as the case may be) under section 61(2)(a).
(3) When any such council publish such a statement, they shall send a copy of the statement—

(a) to each Authority or council whom they were required to consult under subsection (1)(a) above; and
(b) to each of the persons or (as the case may be) organisations whom they consulted under subsection (1)(b) above;

in relation to the formulation of their policies on the occasion in question.
(4) The council shall also—

(a) cause a copy of the statement last published by them under subsection (2) above to be made available for inspection (at all reasonable hours) at such places as they think fit; and
(b) give notice, by such means as they think expedient for bringing it to the attention of the public, as to the places at which a copy of that statement may be inspected."
Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 132, after subsection (1)(b) insert—
`(c) with persons resident in the areas affected by such policies'.
No. 213, in clause 82, page 82, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) of all authorities who are—

(i) local education authorities in England and Wales or education authorities in Scotland; or
(ii)local authorities exercising, in England and Wales, social services functions or, in Scotland, social work functions;
in relation to any expenditure on transport for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise and performance of their functions as local education authorities or education authorities or (as the case may be) of their social services or social work functions;
No. 214, in page 82, line 37, at end insert—
(2A) In subsection (2)(b)(ii) above "local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, an authority who are a local authority for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970; and
(b) in relation to Scotland, an authority who are a local authority for the purposes of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968."
No. 285, in clause 120, page 117, line 12, at end insert—
"securities", in relation to a body corporate, means any shares, stock, debentures, debenture stock, and any other security of a similar nature, of the body corporate;
page 132, line 2, at end insert—
"social services functions" means functions which are social services functions for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970;
social work functions" means functions which are social work functions for the purposes of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;

Mr. Ancram: I believe that these changes will be welcomed in all parts of the House. They place new duties on authorities to consult about their transport policies, to publish a statement of those policies and to liaise with one another to secure better co-ordination between social services, education and transport authorities on how best to meet all their transport requirements. When it left the House, the Bill contained certain consultation duties on county, regional and island councils, but not on PTAs, and co-operation duties on education and transport but not on social services authorities.
These amendments fill those gaps. They also ensure that county, regional and island councils which exercise all three functions must equally have regard to all their responsibilities when drawing up their transport policies. It was impressed upon my right hon. Friend in Standing Committee that a requirement on authorities to publish a statement of policies would usefully improve accountability to the electorate. These amendments do that while avoiding unnecessary burdens on authorities. The amendments also require PTAs, county, regional and island councils to consult each other where their policies may affect each other's areas. I am sure that this will be welcomed by authorities and passengers alike.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment:No. 98, in page 52, line 21, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert—
(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority for any passenger transport area to formulate from time to time general policies with respect to the descriptions of public passenger transport services they consider it appropriate for the Executive for their area to secure for the purpose of meeting any public transport requirements within their area which in the view of the Authority would not be met apart from any action taken by the Executive for that purpose.
(2) The Authority shall seek and have regard to the advice of the Executive for their area in formulating their policies under subsection (1) of this section.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Executive for any passenger transport area to secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as they consider it appropriate to secure for meeting any public transport requirements within their area in accordance with policies formulated by the Authority for their area under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) The Executive shall have power to enter into an agreement providing for service subsidies for the purpose of securing the provision of any service under subsection (3) of this section; but their power to do so—

(a)shall be exercisable only where the service in question would not be provided without subsidy; and
(b)is subject to sections 83 to 86 of the Transport Act 1985 (tendering for local services, etc.)."

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Lords amendments: No. 122, in clause 61, page 59, line 28, after "county" insert
which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose;".

No. 123, in page 59, line 38, after "area" insert which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose;".

No. 124, in page 59, line 42, leave out subsection (3).

No. 127, in page 60, line 12, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
(5) A non-metropolitan district council in England and Wales shall have power to secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as they consider it appropriate to secure to meet any public transport requirements within their area which would not in their view be met apart from any action taken by them for that purpose.
(6) For the purpose of securing the provision of any service under subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a) or (as the case may be) under subsection (5) above any council shall have power to enter into an agreement providing for service subsidies; but their power to do so—

(a) shall be exercisable only where the service in question would not be provided without subsidy; and
(b) is subject to sections 83 to 86 of this Act.".

No. 329, in schedule 3, page 130, line 2, leave out subparagraph (a) and insert—
(a) subsection (1)(a) shall be omitted;

No. 330, in page 130, line 15, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
11. In section 15A of that Act (control of Executive by Authority) subsection (1) shall be omitted.".

No. 331, in page 130, line 37, leave out "(1)" and insert "(3)".

No. 336, in page 133, line 31, leave out "(1)" and insert "(3)"

No. 390, in schedule 7, page 150, line 34, column 3, after "15" insert "subsection (1)(a),".

No. 391, in page 150, line 46, column 3, at end insert "Section 15A(1).".

Mr. Ridley: These amendments have an important purpose. On Report in another place the Government were asked to remove any possible scope for misunderstanding

about the roles of the PTA and the PTE which could conceivably arise from the drafting of the Bill The amendments seek to state the roles of the authority and its executive more clearly. I hope that the House will welcome it if I describe briefly what those roles are.
The PTA will be responsible for assessing the transport requirements which exist within its area. It will also be responsible for formulating general policies about the descriptions of services which should be secured to meet those requirements. It will then be the responsibility of the executive, the PTE, to secure the services which, in its professional judgment, it believes to be appropriate to implement the policies of the authority. It will have the power to do so by entering into agreements for service subsidies, subject to the tendering provisions of the Bill, but this power is to be exercised in accordance with the authority's general policies. The amendments also make clear the responsibilities of non-metropolitan authorities. If any hon. Member would like me to do so, I can go into those at length.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 99 to 106 agreed to.

Clause 58

TRANSFER OF BUS UNDERTAKINGS OF EXECUTIVES TO COMPANIES OWNED BY AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 107, in page 55, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(a) activities of any description carried on by the Executive in. or for the purposes of the provision of any service for the carriage of passengers by road currently provided by the Executive in exercise of any of their powers under section 10(1) of the 1968 Act; and ".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Lords amendments: No. 108, in page 55, line 23, leave out from "with" to end of line 24 and insert 
any activities within paragraph (a) above or to be capable of being conveniently carried on in association with any such activities.".

No. 160, in clause 69, page 71, line 1, at beginning
insert
Subject to subsection (5) below".

No. 161, in page 71, line 4, leave out
other than transferred activities".

No. 166, in page 71, line 17, leave out
other than transferred activities".

No. 167, in page 71, line 22, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
(5) Subsection (3)(a) above shall not apply—

(a) in the case of a public transport company whose controlling authority are the Passenger Transport Authority for any passenger transport area, in relation to activities within the powers of the Executive for that area or activities which were formerly within those powers but have ceased to be so by virtue of any order made under section 59 of this Act;
(b) in the case of a public transport company within section 68(1)(c) of this Act, in relation to activities which were formerly within the powers of the council who formed, or of any council who participated in forming that company, but have ceased to be so by virtue of section 62(1) of this Act.".

Mr. Mitchell: These amendments are carefully designed to meet points which were made not only by hon. Members but in another place. Some concern was


expressed about the Bill's requirement for PTEs to form a company for the purpose of carrying passengers by road within, to and from, but not completely outside, their areas. The Government initially had doubts about whether this phrase would prevent the initial company from maintaining services outside its area, which, for historical reasons, the PTE had assumed responsibility for and had confirmed that it would provide. We carefully considered the arguments that were put to us, particularly in relation to the services run by the Greater Manchester PTE in Glossop and agreed that there might be some doubt about the position.
These amendments were tabled to put an end to that doubt. They make it clear that the initial company should be formed to provide any of the services now carried out by the PTE, including any outside its area. They also make quite sure that the new company will have adequate scope to make alterations to the services which it provides, including the provision of related new services, by classifying a later clause to make it clear that the company may engage in any activities, including new ones, which can conveniently be carried on in association with the executive's existing activities. I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to have a constructive response from the Government to a genuine doubt which arose during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Parris: Derbyshire county council was concerned about possible misunderstandings arising under the Bill. It will be pleased at the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendmentNo. 108 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 109, in page 55, line 26, leave out "1948" and insert "1985"

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with Lords said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 114, in page 58, line 8, leave out "1948" and insert "1985".

No. 118, in page 58, line 36, leave out "1948" and insert "1985".

No. 138, in clause 63, page 63, line 14, leave out "1948" and insert "1985".

No. 194, in clause 72, page 75, line 27, leave out
161 of the Companies Act 1948
and insert
389 of the Companies Act 1985".

No. 196, in page 76, line 12, leave out
161 of the Companies Act 1948
and insert
389 of the Companies Act 1985".

No. 283, in clause 120, page 116, line 20, leave out from "in" to the end of line 22 and insert "the Companies Act 1985".

No. 286, in page 117, line 22, leave out
154 of the Companies Act 1948
and insert
736 of the Companies Act 1985".

No. 380, in schedule 6, page 148, line 44, leave out
161 of the Companies Act 1948
and insert
389 of the Companies Act 1985".

Mr. Mitchell: The amendments simply update references in the Bill to the Companies Act 1948, as a result of this enactment and the coming into force of the new consolidated Companies Act 1985. The amendments are technical.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 110, in page 55, line 33, leave out from "theirs" to end of line 35 and insert
which it appears to the Executive to be appropriate to transfer to that company".

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 111, in page 56, line 22, leave out "held by them"

No. 112, in page 56, line 23, at end insert—"
(8A) Where—

(a) the property, rights and liabilities transferred under subsection (7) above include the whole of the undertaking of any wholly-owned subsidiary of the Executive; and
(b) it appears to the Executive that no further action is required on the part of that subsidiary to perfect any transfer under that subsection;
the Executive shall secure that that subsidiary is wound up.".

No. 113; in clause 60, page 57, line 45, at end insert—
(1A) Where the initial company has any wholly-owned subsidiaries, the proposals may, instead of or (as the case may be) in addition to providing for the transfer to any one or more of those companies of the shares in or other securities of any such subsidiary comprised in the initial company's undertaking, provide for—

(a) the division among those companies; or
(b) the transfer to any one of them;
of the whole or any part of the undertaking, or of any property, rights or liabilities of, that subsidiary.".

No. 115, in page 58, line 10, leave out
is to be divided among the transferee companies
and insert—
, and the whole or any part of the undertaking of any wholly-owned subsidiary of the initial company to which the proposals relate, is to be divided among the transferee companies or (as the case may be) transferred in accordance with the proposals to any one of those companies;".

No. 116, in page 58, line 12, leave out from "company" to end of line 14 and insert—
, and of any wholly-owned subsidiary of the initial company the whole of whose undertaking is to be transferred in accordance with the proposals to any one or more of the transferee companies, on completion of the transfer of that company's or (as the case may be) of that subsidiary's undertaking.".

No. 117, in page 58, line 20, after "company"
insert—
and of any wholly-owned subsidiary of the initial company".

No. 119, in page 59, line 2, leave out
comprised in the part of the initial company's undertaking
and insert—
, and of any wholly-owned subsidiary of the initial company, which are".

No. 120, in page 59, line 21, at end insert—
(12) Subsection (11) above shall apply in relation to any subsidiary of the initial company the whole of whose undertaking is transferred under the scheme to one or more of the transferee companies as it applies in relation to the initial company.".

No. 162, in clause 69, page 71, line 6, at end insert
or permit any body corporate which is its subsidiary to engage in any such activities".

No. 163, in page 71, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
(b) does not—

(i) borrow money from any person other than the controlling authority; or


(ii) permit any body corporate which is its subsidiary to borrow money from any person other than the company, any other subsidiary of the company, or the controlling authority; with the exception in each case of borrowing by way of temporary loan or overdraft; and".

No. 164, in page 71, line 10, after "not" insert "(i)".

No. 165, in page 71, line 11, at end insert—
; or
(ii) permit any body corporate which is its subsidiary to raise money by the issue of shares or stock to any person other than the company.".

No. 168, in clause 70, page 71, line 39, leave out
a paid employee of the company
and insert—
paid for acting as such or is an employee of the public transport company or a subsidiary of the public transport company.".

No. 173, in page 72, line 6, after "council" insert
"(a)".

No. 174, in page 72, line 7, leave out from "with" to
"vote" in line 9 and insert—
, or any other matter relating to the activities of, the public transport company or a subsidiary of that company; or (b) ".

No. 175, in page 72, line 36, leave out from beginning to "was" in line 1 of page 73 and insert—
, or any other matter relating to the activities of the company concerned".

No. 179, page 73, line 11, leave out from "with" to "is" in line 12 and insert—
, or any other matter relating to the activities of, the public transport company or a subsidiary of that company".

No. 186, in page 73, line 35, leave out from "with" to "by" in line 36 and insert—
, or in any other matter relating to the activities of, the public transport company or a subsidiary of that company".

No. 187, in page 73, line 37, at end insert—
or in a subsidiary of that company.
(12) The provisions of this section shall apply in relation to a director of a subsidiary of a public transport company as they apply in relation to a director of such a company.".

No. 190, in clause 71, page 74, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
such shares or other securities.".

No. 191 page 74, line 18, leave out from beginning to"which" in line 20 and insert—

(a) the disposal by that company of the whole of that company's undertaking;
(b) any disposal by that company of any shares in or other securities of a body corporate which is that company's subsidiary; or
(c) any disposal by that company of any part of that company's undertaking, or of any assets of that company (other than shares or securities within paragraph (b) above)".

No 197, in clause 72, page 76, line 21, leave out "wholly-owned". No. 198 in clause 74, page 76, leave out line 27 and insert—
, or with any subsidiary of an associated company, for the provision by that Executive or council for that company or (as the case may be) for that subsidiary".

No. 201, in clause 76, page 78, line 16, leave out from "section" to end of line 17.

No. 272 in clause 113, page 111, line 15, leave out "a" and insert "the whole or any".

Mr. Mitchell: The amendments concern subsidiary companies. They ensure that the Bill provides the proper range of powers and controls to cater for any subsidiary formed by a PTE or by a public transport company owned by a PTE or district council.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 111 to 120 agreed to.

New Clause

PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ON TRANSFER AND DIVISION OF BUS UNDERTAKINGS

Lords amendment:No. 121, after clause 60, insert the following new Clause—Protection of employee benefits on transfer and divisions of bus undertakings—
.—(1) In this section, as it applies in relation to the Passenger Transport Executive or (as the case may be) in relation to the Passenger Transport Authority for any passenger transport area—

"the first transfer" means the transfer under section 58(7) of this Act to the initial company of property, rights and liabilities of the Executive for that area; and
"the second transfer" means the transfer under section 60(11) of this Act to companies formed under that section of property, rights and liabilities of the initial company;
and "the first transfer date" and the "the second transfer date" mean respectively the date on which the first transfer and the date on which the second transfer takes effect.
(2) The Passenger Transport Executive for any passenger transport area shall have power to make, in such manner as they think fit, such provision as appears to them to be appropriate in connection with either the first or the second transfer for the maintenance to any extent of any concession, benefit or privilege of a description enjoyed immediately before the first transfer date by—

(a) persons who then were or had been employed in such part of the Executive's undertaking, or of the undertaking of any wholly-owned subsidiary of the Executive, as was transferred on that date to the initial company; or
(b) members of the families of any such persons.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Passenger Transport Authority for any passenger transport area shall have power to make, in such manner as they think fit, such provision as appears to them to be appropriate in connection with the second transfer for the maintenance to any extent of any concession, benefit or privilege of a description enjoyed immediately before the second transfer date by—

(a) persons who then were or had been employed in any undertaking or part of an undertaking transferred on that date to a company formed under section 60 of this Act; or
(b) members of the families of any such persons.
(4) Subsection (3) above shall apply to any concession, benefit or privilege of a description to which subsection (2) above applies.
(5) Where provision for the maintenance of a concession, benefit or privilege of any description may be made under sub- section (2) or (3) above provision may instead be made, in any cases or classes of case to which that subsection applies, for the making of any payment or the provision of any other concession, benefit or privilege in compensation for he loss or (as the case may be) for any reduction or limitation of concessions, benefits or privileges of that description.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Stott: I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 18, leave out from 'as' to 'enjoyed' in line 21 and insert—
'will guarantee, in connection with the first or second transfer, the maintenance of all concessions, benefits, privileges and pensions.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 30, leave out from 'as' to 'before' in line 33 and insert—
`will guarantee, in connection with the second transfer, the maintenance of all concessions, benefits, privileges, and pensions enjoyed'.

Mr. Stott: It is important to examine exactly what their Lordships have done in amendment No. 121. The


Government's response by the noble Lord Trefgarne to the amendments moved by Lord Banks appear to be reasonable, but on close examination a number of inadequacies are revealed. We can narrow them down to four. Let us first examine the financial liability. Any service by an employee within a superannuation scheme up to the date of transfer to the company is protected. It leaves aside the question of how the pension increases are to be funded in the absence of any central Government funding. There are two options. The first is for the company. If an employee is transferred to a company, the cost of funding pension increases from previous service could be borne by the company as a transferred liability from the executive. That would affect the company's ability to compete because the cost would be substantial.
The cost could be retained by the executive, but it would then become the first charge on the revenue grant from the authority as that would be the only source of income. That would adversely affect the ability to subsidise services and grant concessionary fares unless the Secretary of State allowed an additional amount above the EFL for that purpose.
Even though the gratuity schemes are covered by the amendments, no reference is made to former employees who retired before their employing authority brought transferred employees within the scope of superannuation. In some instances, these schemes have been unfunded and payments have been made by the executive out of general income. There is protection for any such scheme under local powers, but some have their origins in acquired undertakings.
It is expected that this liability will continue to be borne by the executive, but in some cases there might be no legal obligations to do so. With the pressure on the precept which will be the only source of funding for the executive, there can be no guarantee. The suggestion is that there should be some protection for retired employees in receipt of gratuities.
Earlier, the Secretary of State referred to the employees' option. The Government intend to alter the local government superannuation regulations to allow company employees to be admitted to the scheme. That is the deemed option. The option is given to the company or local authority, not to the employee. If that option is not exercised by the employer, the employee's position could be adversely affected since the new scheme might not be as good as the local government superannuation scheme. Alternatively, the employers might not be prepared to admit the employees to the scheme on grounds of ill health or old age. In such circumstances, it could be impossible for the employee to protect himself by private arrangements. It is therefore important that the employee should have the right to opt.
God forbid that bankruptcy should occur, but one never knows. Bankruptcy is not covered. That might be acceptable in respect of new employees, but it could be grossly unfair to existing employees since it could affect previous service as well as service with a particular company. Employees with local authority sectors in transport undertakings work for organisations which cannot go bankrupt. Thus, they enjoy complete security. They organise their personal affairs accordingly. Their position is altered by the Bill and employees might now

be unable to protect themselves adequately in the absence of a Government guarantee in respect of their superannuation rights.
A serious problem is revealed by our discussions on pensions and superannuation, not just for the National Bus Company and its employees but for the thousands of employees of the PTEs and municipal undertakings throughout the country.
I do not wish to press our amendments to a Division, but I hope that the Secretary of State will examine what I have said and perhaps devise a way of incorporating in legislation the spirit of what I have said.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has made a constructive, detailed and complicated speech which I shall try to answer as fully as I can. I shall be happy to supplement my reply with a letter, because some of his remarks were highly technical.
Before replying I shall say something about the Lords amendment which the Government recommend the House to accept. It was introduced by the Government to give power to PTEs and PTAs to provide for the continuance of staff benefits for employees of their bus companies who, as the result of deregulation or restructuring, might otherwise lose staff benefits—principally free or reduced price travel or, as the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said, gratuities.
Alternatively, it provides for compensation to be paid if the benefits are not to be continued. The intention is simple and limited. This proposed power will be complementary to the scheme-making process, allowing the arrangements for fringe benefits to continue so far as is practicable and for the negotiation of adequate replacements in cash or in kind when they are not.
PTE employees are currently all members of the local government superannuation scheme. They will have a benefit accrued in that scheme representing their service up to the time of transfer to the public transport company. I stress, as I said when we debated the last amendment dealing with pensions, that whatever arrangements are made for the future, transferred staff will be entitled to keep their accrued benefit preserved in the local government superannuation scheme, where it is now.
The hon. Member for Wigan asked what would happen if a company went bust. If the employees had accrued benefits with the local government superannuation scheme, they would be preserved in the event of the company going bust, up to the time of transfer. It is impossible to imagine that a local government scheme would go bust. That is a remote possibility only. No statutory provision is needed for that; it already exists in the rules of the scheme. That preserved benefit will be increased in line with prices until the person concerned retires and receives it as a pension. Thereafter, the pension, too, will be increased in line with prices.
It is important that I should make it clear that staff can keep their accrued benefit in their existing pension schemes and that it is covered, in relation to increases in the cost of living, in the way that I described. I again take issue with Bill Morris, who seemed to imply that that was not so. Talking about the strike, he said:
The strike is not a strike against the Government. It is an argument with the employers. The employers have it in their authority to guarantee our members continued membership of the local government superannuation scheme. We want to make that absolutely clear.


I do not want him to mislead bus men into thinking that in some way they are being taken out of the scheme for accrued rights. That is not the case, as I have said.
The hon. Member for Wigan asked about the cost of this to the local authority. The employees of PTEs and bus undertakings stay the same. Costs can be allocated by local decision to a PTE or a company. We have said that we will look at the GRE if costs shift between different types of authority. In any event, the pensioners are secure. Thus, thought is being given to that as part of ensuring that the local authority financial regime will accommodate what is being done.
As for the future, we shall not impose any pension arrangements on the public transport company. It would be strange if we did, because the whole point of setting up these companies is to ensure that they can be run as independent, free-standing concerns able to respond to local travellers' needs and local commercial circumstances. It is exactly on that sort of local managerial flexibility that the prosperity of the bus industry and its employees must depend.
Thus, we must leave the company free to negotiate pension arrangements with staff, just as it would negotiate any other term or condition of service — just as any other company is free to negotiate with its employees. We must not give the new companies an unfair disadvantage compared with their competitors. That point was made in the earlier pensions debate.
8.45 pm
I am in no doubt that the companies will be thoroughly responsible employers and do their best for their staff. The hon. Gentleman referred to ill health and old age. It is unlikely that any employer would set up a scheme which excluded his own staff. Most modern pension schemes have no health test, so it is good management practice which these companies should, as many companies do, seek to follow.
They will have the option to continue to participate in the local government superannuation scheme as far as transferred employees are concerned. We recognise that, and we shall make it possible by making the necessary changes to the relevant regulations. Thus, the PTE, with the agreement of the company, can arrange for continued membership of the LGSS for transferred employees. In other words, the Government are willing to make options available for local decision by the company and its parent.
The hon. Gentleman then asked why we could not allow individuals the choice of deciding whether or not to stay in the local government superannuation scheme. Individual choice would be inconsistent with the principles of the LGSS, and with most other occupational pension schemes, too. Apart from anything else, the decision has cost implications for the employer, and therefore for the financial success of the company as a whole.
The decision must ultimately be for management, but, as responsible employers, they would want to consult carefully the staff representatives. The hon. Gentleman will realise that in no occupational scheme is it an individual decision; it is a decision taken by the employer after discussions with his staff and maybe the trade unions.
I hope that those remarks are of help to the hon. Member for Wigan. I believe that he will agree that his amendment would not be appropriate. Accordingly, I hope that he will not press it.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I may have the position wrong because I am not an expert on pensions. If, under the local authority, the municipal bus services as they now exist are privatised and the new owner of the privatised bus company wishes to avail himself of the opportunity of remaining within the local government pension scheme, I gather that he can do so. In other words, it is entirely a matter for the proprietor.
However, if it is part of the National Bus Company, that situation will not apply because that company's pension scheme is to be would up and the accrued benefit will go to those employees who at the time of the winding up, are still in the employment of the National Bus Company or one of its subsidiaries. From then on they will be at risk if their new employer does not run a suitable pension scheme. Is that right or wrong?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman was not right in his second point. If a local government bus operation became a company, whether or not it had private capital in it, the company could opt to stay in the LGSS. The accrued: rights up to the time of the transfer must stay in the local government scheme and be available.
With the National Bus Company there is no continuing pension fund, unless the trustees decide that they would like to do that. If the trustees were to decide not to take insurance but to continue to run the fund, they would be able to do that and to safeguard the assets which had accrued at the time of transfer. They would have to run it for perhaps another 50 years because people with service would still be drawing pensions from the fund in 50 Years' time. That is from where the desire for greater security came.
The privatised subsidiaries or companies from the National Bus Company could decide either to stay with such an arrangement, if it were to come into existence, and leave their pension business with that fund, or to set up their own funds for future service.
Obviously, they cannot decide to set up their own funds for accrued rights, but they can for the future. There is an analogy between both instances: for future service the choice is with the future company; for past service the choice is with the LGSS for local government bus operations and with the National Bus Company pension funds for past service with the NBC. The earlier arguments concerned how best to guarantee and give security to the accrued rights of the National Bus Company fund.

Mr. Stephen Ross: that is a clear explanation, and it is valuable that it will be on record.

Amendment negatived

Lords amendment No. 121 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 122 to 130 agreed to.

Clause 61

FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL COUNCILS WITH RESPECT TO PASSENGER TRANSPORT IN AREAS OTHER THAN PASSENGER TRANSPORT AREAS

Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 61, line 20, leave out from "agreements" to end of line 23 and insert—
under which any person undertakes to provide a public passenger transport service of any description on terms which include provision for the making of payments to that person by that Executive or council".

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 216, in clause 83, page 83, line 40, leave out "in respect of a local service" and insert—
under which a local service is to be provided".

No. 221, in clause 85, page 86, line 41, leave out "respect of and insert "order to secure".

No. 222, in page 87, line 22, leave out "respect of and insert "order to secure".

No. 223, to leave out clause 87 and insert the following new clause—

Travel concession schemes

87.—(1) Any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may establish a travel concession scheme for the provision of travel concessions on journeys on public passenger transport services—

(a) between places in the principal area covered by the scheme;
(b) between such places and places outside but in the vicinity of that area; or
(c) between places outside but in the vicinity of that area; by operators of such services participating in the scheme.
(2) for the purposes of this section, the principal area covered by a scheme under this section is—

(a) the area of the local authority concerned or, where two or more such authorities are concerned, the area comprising the areas of both or all those authorities; or
(b) if an area comprised within the area which would be the principal area under paragraph (a) above is specified in the scheme as being the principal area to which the scheme applies, the area so specified.
(4) Any travel concession scheme established under this section shall define—

(a) the travel concessions which are for the time bring to be provided by operators participating in the scheme;
(b) the description of persons eligible in accordance with subsection (8) below to receive travel concessions under any such scheme who are for the time being to qualify for travel concessions provided under the scheme; and
(c) the dates in any year currently adopted as the dates on which operators may be admitted to participate in the scheme under section (Right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession schemes) of this Act (referred to below in this section as the standard admission dates);
and may include particulars of any other arrangements for the time being adopted by the authority or authorities concerned in establishing the scheme with respect to the operation, scope and application of the scheme.
(5) Any such scheme may define the standard admission dates by specifying particular dates, or by referring to dates of any specified description or separated by intervals of any specified length; but those dates, however determined, must not be separated by intervals of a length exceeding such period as may be prescribed.
(6) Arrangements adopted by the authority or authorities concerned in establishing any such scheme with respect to the operation, scope and application of the scheme (including the matters specifically mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4) above) may differ for different descriptions of concessions or services to which the scheme applies.
(7) Subject to section 88 of this Act, where an operator participating in any such scheme in respect of any services operated by him provides travel concessions in accordance with the scheme for persons travelling on those services, the authority responsible for administration of the scheme or (as the case may be) the authorities so responsible in such proportions respectively as they may agree among themselves shall reimburse that operator for providing those concessions.
(8) The persons eligible to receive travel concessions under any such scheme are—

(a) men over the age of sixty-five years and women over the age of sixty years;
(b) persons whose age does not exceed sixteen years;
(c) persons whose age exceeds sixteen years but does not exceed eighteen years and who are undergoing full-time education;

(d) blind persons, that is to say, persons so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which sight is essential;
(e) persons suffering from any disability or injury which, in the opinion of the authority or any of the authorities responsible for administration of the scheme, seriously impairs their ability to walk; and
(f) such other classes of persons as the Secretary of State may by order specify.
(9) In this section "local authority"—

(a) means the council of a county or district in England and Wales or a regional or islands council in Scotland; and
(b) includes also, in relation to England and Wales, a metropolitan county passenger transport authority.
(10) Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this section and in the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to schemes under this section to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under this section are references—

(a) except in a case to which paragraph (b) below applies, to the authority concerned in establishing the scheme or, where two or more authorities are so concerned, to both or all those authorities acting jointly; or
(b) where the authority or one of the authorities concerned in establishing the scheme are a Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area in England and Wales,
to the Passenger Transport Executive for that Authority's area or (as the case may require) to that Executive and the other authority or authorities so concerned acting jointly.
(11) Where a Passenger Transport Authority have established a scheme under this section, whether alone or jointly with any other authority or authorities, they shall notify the Passenger Transport Executive for their area of any proposal to vary the scheme, giving particulars of the proposed variation.

Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment No. 223, in subsection (8), leave out paragraphs (a) to (f) and insert—

(a) any persons in receipt of any form of pension or who are over the age of sixty in the case of women and sixty-five in the case of men.
(b) all persons under the age of eighteen who are no in full time work.
(c) any persons who in the opinion of the authority suffer from any disability which in the opinion of the authority makes that person unable to rely on private forms of transport.
(d) any other persons whose receipt of travel concessions, would in the opinion of the authority, improve the efficiency of the public transport service provided.'.

No. 224, to leave out clause 88 and insert the following new clause—

Reimbursement for travel concessions under schemes

88.—(1) Regulations under this section may make provision with respect to any of the following matters—

(a) the factors to be taken into account by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of a travel concession scheme under section 87 of this Act in determining the aggregate amount that may be made available for the purpose of reimbursing operators participating in the scheme for providing travel concessions during any period;
(b) the determination by the authority or authorities so responsible of the amounts to be paid to individual operators participating in the scheme, or to any class of such operators, by way of reimbursement for providing such concessions;
(c) the manner of making any payments due to operators by way of such reimbursement;
(d) the provisions or description of provisions that are to be or (as the case may be) may or may not be included in arrangements agreed with operators or adopted by the authority or authorities so responsible with respect to participation of operators in the scheme; and
(e) the terms on which and the extent to which the authority or authorities so responsible may employ any person as their agent for the purposes of the administration of the scheme and the descriptions of persons who may be so employed.


(2) Subject to any provision of regulations made by virtue of subsection (1)(d) above and to the following provisions of this section, the arrangements with respect to participation of operators in any such scheme shall be such as may from time to time be agreed between the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme and individual operators.
(3) Subject to—

(a) any provision of regulations under subsection (1) above;
(b) any modifications that may by virtue of any provision of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (d) of that subsection or in accordance with section (Right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession schemes) of this Act be agreed between the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme and any individual operator; and
(c) any modifications applied in the case of any individual operator by a direction given under section 90 of this Act;
the arrangements with respect to reimbursement and terms of withdrawal from participation in the scheme applicable to operators of eligible services participating in the scheme shall be such as the authority or authorities responsible for administration may from time to time adopt and must be the same in the case of all such operators.
(4) For the purposes of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to schemes under section 87 of this Act, a service is an eligible service if it is a service qualifying for fuel duty grant.
(5) The arrangements currently adopted by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme with respect to reimbursement of operators of eligible services participating in the scheme are referred to below in this Part of this Act, in relation to that scheme, as the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme.
(6) In relation to operators participating in any such scheme, references in this section to arrangements with respect to reimbursement are references to conditions of entitlement of such operators to, and the method of determination and manner of payment of, reimbursement in respect of travel concessions provided under the scheme.

No. 225, after clause 88, insert the following new clause —Publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements—
. —(1) On or before the date on which a scheme under section 87 of this Act comes into operation or, where it comes into operation on different dates with respect to different concessions to be provided under the scheme, on or before the first of those dates—

(a) the authority or authorities concerned in establishing it shall publish particulars of the scheme; and
(b) the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme shall publish particulars of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme as they are to apply on initial establishment of the scheme;
in such manner, in either case, as the authority or authorities concerned think fit.
(2) Particulars of any subsequent variations shall be published—

(a) in the case of variations of the scheme, by the authority or authorities concerned in establishing the scheme; and
(b) in the case of variations of the arrangements, by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme.
(3) Following publication under subsection (1)(a) or (as the case may be) under subsection (1)(b) above of particulars of any scheme or arrangements—

(a)copies of the scheme or (as the case may be) of the arrangements (with any subsequent variations) shall be made available at the principal office of the authority or (as the case may be) of each authority concerned; and
(b) a copy shall be supplied to any person on request (whether at that office or by post) either free of charge or at a charge representing the cost of providing the copy.
(4) Where the authority or any of the authorities concerned in establishing a scheme under section 87 of this Act are a Passenger Transport Authority, they shall notify the Passenger Transport Executive for their area of any proposal to publish particulars of the scheme in advance of its coming into operation, giving the proposed date of publication.

No. 226, to insert the following new clause—Right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession schemes—
. —(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where any operator or prospective operator of an eligible service which runs or will run between places within the limits covered by any scheme under section 87 of this Act applies to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of that scheme to be admitted to participate in it in respect of that service, the authority or authorities in question shall be obliged to admit that operator to participation in the scheme in respect of that service as from any standard admission date under the scheme not later than the one next following—

(a) the end of such period as may be prescribed beginning with the date of his application; or
(b) the date on which the service begins; whichever last occurs.
(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme, exempt the authority or authorities in question from the obligation under subsection (1) above in relation to any service or description of services; and the Secretary of State may at any time withdraw or vary any exemption granted under this subsection.
(3) An exemption may not be granted under subsection (2) above on the application of a Passenger Transport Executive, or on the joint application of authorities who include such an Executive, unless the application is made with the consent of the Passenger Transport Authority for that Executive's area.
(4) Subject to any regulations under section 88(1)(d) of this Act, where it appears to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme, in the case of any operator or prospective operator of an eligible service who applies to be admitted to participate in the scheme in respect of that service, that fares currently charged or proposed to be charged by that operator for relevant journeys on that service include a special amenity element, the authority or authorities in question shall not be required by subsection (1) above to admit that operator to participation in the scheme in respect of that service unless that operator agrees to appropriate modifications of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme.
(5) Subject to any such regulations, where it appears to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme, in the case of any operator of an eligible service participating in the scheme, that fares currently charged by that operator for relevant journeys on that service include a special amenity element, the authority or authorities in question may by notice of not less than such period as may be prescribed exclude that operator from participation in the scheme in respect of that service unless before the end of that period that operator agrees to appropriate modifications of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme.
(6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5) above fares for relevant journeys are to be regarded as including a special amenity element if they are significantly high in relation to the general level of fares for comparable journeys in the principal area covered by the scheme (within the meaning of section 87 of this Act).
(7) References in those subsections to appropriate modifications of the reimbursement arrangements there mentioned are references to such modifications of those arrangements as the authority or authorities concerned consider appropriate for providing reimbursement in respect of travel concessions provided for relevant journeys on the service in question by reference to the general level of fares mentioned in subsection (6) above instead of by reference to the actual fares charged (or proposed to be charged) for those journeys.
(8) For the purposes of this section "relevant journeys" are journeys on which travel concessions are to be provided under the scheme in question.
(9) For the purposes of this section and section 89 of this Act, references to a prospective operator of an eligible service are references to a person who has registered a local service under section 6 of this Act but is not yet operating that service.

No. 227, to leave out clause 89 and insert the following new clause—

Compulsory participation in travel concession schemes

89. — (1) Subject to subsection (8) below, where the arrangements currently adopted by the authority or authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under section 87 of this Act with respect to the terms on which operators of eligible services may withdraw from participation in the scheme require such an operator to give notice before withdrawing from the scheme in respect of any such service, any such operator shall be obliged to provide any travel concessions required by the scheme on journeys on any such service in respect of which he is participating in the scheme until he gives the required notice of withdrawal and the period of notice has expired.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the authority or authorities responsible for administration of any such scheme may at any time by notice in writing served on any operator or prospective operator of an eligible service (including an operator already participating in the scheme) impose on him an obligation to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme on journeys on any such service operated by that operator to which the notice applies.
A notice under this subsection is referred to below in this Part of this Act as a participation notice.
(3) The power under subsection (2) above to serve a participation notice shall not be exercisable in relation to any such scheme until after the date (or whichever last occurs of the respective dates) of first publication under section (Publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements) of this Act of particulars of the scheme and of the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme as they are to apply on initial establishment of the scheme.
(4) An obligation imposed by a participation notice shall, subject to subsection (8) below and sections 90 and (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act, be effective in relation to any service to which the obligation applies as from the appropriate commencement date for that service until the end of such period beginning with that date as may be specified in the participation notice.
(5) Subject to subsection (9) below, for the purposes of subsection (4) above the appropriate commencement date for any service to which an obligation imposed by a participation notice applies is—

(a) the date immediately following the end of such period of notice as may be specified in the participation notice; or
(b) the date when the service begins;
whichever last occurs.
(6) Where it is proposed—

(a) to vary a scheme under section 87 of this Act; or
(b) to vary the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in any such scheme;
the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme may, not less than such period before the variation is to take effect as may be prescribed, by notice served on any operator of any such service who is under an obligation under this section to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme, require him to indicate, within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, whether or not he is willing to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect.
(7) Any notice under subsection (6) above shall give particulars of the proposed variation.
(8) Where in pursuance of subsection (6) above an operator indicates that he is not willing to continue to participate in the scheme after the variation takes effect, any obligation of that operator under this section to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme which was current at the date of the notice under that subsection and would still apart from this subsection be in force on the date when the variation takes effect shall cease on the latter date (without prejudice, however, to the service of a new participation notice).
(9) Where a notice is served on an operator under subsection (6) above the preceding provisions of this section shall apply, on and after the date when the variation in question takes effect, in relation to any obligation of that operator under subsection (2) above to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme in question which—

(a) was current at the date of the notice; and


(b) does not cease (by virtue of subsection (8) above or otherwise) before the date when that variation takes effect;
as if the latter date were the appropriate commencement date for the purposes of subsection (4) above for each service to which the obligation applies.
(10) The exercise of the power to serve a participation notice under this section on any person—

(a) by a Passenger Transport Executive; or
(b) by authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under section 87 of this Act who include such an Executive;
shall require the consent of the Passenger Transport Authority for the Executive's area.

No. 228, to leave out clause 90 and insert the following new clause—

Further provisions with respect to participation notices.

90. — (1) The authority or authorities by whom a participation notice is served on any person shall send to that person, together with the notice, a copy of—

(a) such particulars of the scheme to which the notice relates and of any variations of that scheme; and
(b) such particulars for the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme and of any variations of those arrangements;
as have been published under section (Publicity requirements for schemes and reimbursement arrangements) of this Act before the date of the notice.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person on whom a participation notice has been served may apply to the Secretary of State for cancellation or variation of that notice on either or both of the following grounds, that is to say—

(a) that there are special reasons why his participation in the scheme in question in respect of the service or any of the services to which the notice applies would be inappropriate; and
(b) that any provision of the scheme or of any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, an application under subsection (2) above may be made by notice in writing given to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the participation notice.
(4) A person may not make such an application unless he has given notice in writing of his intention to do so to the authority or authorities by whom the participation notice was served—

(a) if a period allowed for that purpose is specified in the participation notice, before the end of that period; or
(b) in any other case, at any time before the date of the notice given to the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above.
(5) Where on any such application the Secretary of State finds the ground mentioned in subsection (2)(a)above established, he may cancel the participation notice or (as the case may require) vary it by excluding from it any service operated by the applicant in respect of which he considers the applicant's participation in the scheme would be inappropriate.
(6) Where on any such application the Secretary of State finds the ground mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above established, he shall cancel the participation notice unless he considers that a direction under subsection (7) below would meet the case.
(7) Where on any such application the Secretary of State does not cancel the participation notice, he may direct that the current arrangements for reimbursement of eligible service operators participating in the scheme shall apply in the case of the applicant or (as the case may require) in the case of any service operated by the applicant to which the participation notice applies with such modifications as may be specified in the direction.
(8) If the Secretary of State cancels a participation notice under subsection (6) above he shall give to the authority or authorities by whom the notice was served a notice in writing indicating in what respects the scheme or (as the case may be) the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in the scheme are inappropriate for application in relation to operators other than operators voluntarily participating in the scheme.

(9) Any obligation under section 89(2) of this Act which has come into effect before the determination of any application under this section with respect to the participation notice by which under obligation was imposed shall—

(a) cease to have effect, if the notice is cancelled; or
(b) have effect, if the notice is varied, subject to a corresponding variation;
on such date as may be specified by the Secretary of State in determining the application.".

No. 229, after clause 90, to insert the following new
clause—

Release from compulsory participation

. — (1) The authority or authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under section 87 of this Act may at any time by notice in writing served on any operator who is an obligation under section 89(2) of this Act to provide travel concessions in accordance with the scheme on journeys on any eligible service operated by him release him from that obligation in respect of that service.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any such operator may at any time by notice in writing apply to the Secretary of State to be released from that obligation in respect of any such service on the ground that the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme have failed to comply with their obligation under section 87(7) of this Act.
(3) An operator may not make such an application unless he has given notice in writing of his intention to do so to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme not less than twenty-eight days before the date of the application.
(4) A notice under subsection (2) or (3) above shall give particulars of any alleged failures of the authority or authorities in question to comply with their obligation under section 87(7) of which the operator complains.
(5) On any such application the Secretary of State may, if he finds the applicant's ground of complaint established, determine that the applicant's obligation under section 89(2) shall cease on such date as may be specified in the determination.

No 230, to leave out clause 91 and insert the following new clause—Supplementary provisions
91. — (1) Regulations under this section may make provision as to—

(a) the maximum or (as the case may be) minimum period that may for the purposes of any provision of section 89 or 90 of this Act be specified in a participation notice;
(b) the form and contents of participation notices and other notices required for any purposes of sections (Right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession schemes) to (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act; and
(c) the manner in which any such notice is to be served.
(2) Where the Secretary of State cancels or varies a participation notice under section 90 of this Act after the obligation imposed by that notice has come into effect he may award compensation to the applicant under subsection (4) below if it appears to him that the applicant has suffered—

(a) in a case where the notice is cancelled, any loss attributable to his participation in the scheme in question; or
(b) in a case where the notice is varied by excluding from it any service operated by the applicant, any loss attributable to his participation in that scheme in respect of that service.
(3) Where on determining an application under section (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act (the Secretary of State finds that the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme in question have failed to comply with their obligation under section 87(7) of this Act, he may award compensation to the applicant under subsection (4) below if it appears to him that the applicant has suffered any loss attributable to that failure.
(4) In any case to which subsection (2) or (3) above applies the Secretary of State may by notice in writing require the authority responsible for administration of the scheme in question or (as the case may be) the authorities so responsible in such proportion as may be specified in the notice to pay to the applicant such an amount by way of compensation in respect of the loss there mentioned as may be so specified.


(5) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit appoint a person to determine an application under section 90 or (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act on his behalf; and references in those sections and in subsections (2) to (4) above to the Secretary of State shall be read as including references to a person so appointed.
(6) Regulations under this section may prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with applications under sections 90 and (Release from compulsory participation) of this Act and may in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of that) include provision—

(a) as to the conduct of any proceedings held in connection with any such application; and
(b) enabling the Secretary of State to require either the applicant or the authority or authorities responsible for administration of the scheme in question, or both or all of them, to pay such sum as the Secretary of State may determine towards any expenses incurred by him in connection with the determination of the application.
(7) Where a requirement under subsection (4) above is imposed on more than one authority, the liability of the authorities concerned to the applicant—

(a) shall extend to the whole of the amount specified in the notice imposing the requirement; and
(b) shall be both joint and several;
but if any such authority make any payment, in or towards the discharge of that liability, of an amount exceeding the amount representing any proportion specified in the notice as that authority's share, that authority shall be entitled to recover an appropriate contribution (determined by reference to the proportions specified in that notice) from the other authority or authorities concerned.
(8) Any sums paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (6)(b) above shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

No. 231, in clause 92, page 95, line 28, at end insert—
(2) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(3) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) above shall apply in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
(4) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not, in England and Wales, be instituted except by the authority, or any one of the authorities, responsible for administration of the scheme in question or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (and any such authority who would not apart from this subsection have power to bring such proceedings shall accordingly have that power).".

No. 236, after clause 93, to insert the following new clause—

Subsidies for travel concessions

. — (1) A Passenger Transport Executive may not in exercise of their powers under section 10(1)(xiii) of the 1968 Act (power of Passenger Transport Executive to charge for services and waive their charges, etc.) provide travel concessions for persons travelling on any public passenger transport service provided by the Executive other than persons of any description eligible in accordance with section 87(8) of this Act to receive travel concessions under a travel concession scheme established under that section, except where those concessions are provided under any agreement or arrangements under which the whole of the cost of providing those concessions is to be met by a person other than that Executive or the Passenger Transport Authority for that Executive's area.
(2) The approval of the Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area under section 15(2) of the 1968 Act (approval of Passenger Transport Authority required for alterations by Executive in general level of charges and for reduction or waiver of charges by Executive) shall not be required for travel concessions granted by the Passenger Transport Executive for that area for persons travelling on any public passenger transport service provided by the Executive if those concessions are granted—


(a) in accordance with any scheme established under section 87 of this Act by any authority other than the Passenger Transport Authority for that Executive's area or (as the case may be) by authorities who do not include that Passenger Transport Authority; or
(b) where that Executive's area is in England and Wales, in pursuance of arrangements made with that Executive by any local authority within the meaning of the National Assistance Act 1948 in exercise of their powers under section 29 of that Act (welfare arrangements for handicapped persons);
or correspond to travel concession under any scheme established under section 87 of this Act by the Passenger Transport Authority for that Executive's area or (as the case may be) by authorities who include that Passenger Transport Authority.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, travel concessions granted by the Executive for a passenger transport area on any such service correspond to travel concessions under any such scheme if they are—

(a) of the same value;
(b) available subject to the same terms, limitations or conditions;
(c) available to persons of the same description; as the travel concessions provided under that scheme."

No. 237, to leave out clause 94 and insert the following new clause—Travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives—

Travel concessions apart from schemes

94.—(1) The payments provided for under an agreement providing for service subsidies entered into by an authority repsonsible for expenditure on public passenger transport services may not include payments in respect of the provision of travel concessions except as provided below in this section.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, provision may be included in any such agreement for the making of payments by the authority in question to the person providing the service to which the agreement relates in respect of the provision of travel concessions on journeys on that service or any part of it for any description of persons eligible in accordance with section 87(8) of this Act to receive travel concessions under a travel concession scheme under that section.
(3) Subsection (2) above only applies where the concessions in question are not available, or not available to that description of persons, under any such scheme administered by the authority concerned or by that authority acting jointly with any other authority or authorities.

No. 238, to leave out clause 95.

No. 239, after clause 95, to insert the following new clause —Travel concessions on services provided by local authorities—
 —(1) Where the council of any county or district in England and Wales or of any region or islands area in Scotland are operating any public passenger transport service, they shall have power to provide travel concessions for persons travelling on that service of any description eligible in accordance with section 87(8) of this Act to receive travel concessions under a travel concession scheme established under that section.
(2) In respect of travel concessions provided under this section, any such council may, if they think fit, from time to time transfer to the credit of the account of their transport undertaking sums from the general rate fund or, where that council is the council of any region or islands area in Scotland, from the general fund (within the meaning of section 93 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973).
(3) Sums so transferred must not exceed the cost to the council concerned of providing the concessions or so much of that cost as would not apart from subsection (2) above fall to be met out of the fund there mentioned.

No. 251, in clause 98, page 99, line 3, at end insert—
(bb)references to the current reimbursement arrangements for eligible service operators participating in any scheme under section 87 of this Act shall be read in accordance with section 88(5) of this Act;
(bc) references to a participation notice shall be read in accordance with section 89(2) of this Act.

No. 366, in schedule 6, page 146, line 1, at end insert—


(". In section 10(1)(xiii) of the 1968 Act (power of Passenger Transport Executive to charge for services, etc.), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "and section (Travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives) of the Transport Act 1985 (travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives)".
. In section 15(2)(b) of that Act (approval of Passenger Transport Authority required for reduction or waiver of charges by Executive), for the words "138(1) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "(Travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives) of the Transport Act 1985 (travel concessions on services provided by Passenger Transport Executives)".".

No. 367, in page 146, line 2, leave out "the 1968" and insert "that".

No. 373, in page 147, line 24, leave out "(7)" and insert "(8)".

No. 374, in page 147, line 27, leave out ("7") and insert "(8)".

No. 416, in page 154, line 12, column 3, leave out "50(8)(a)" and insert
50, subsections (2) and (6) and, in subsection (8)(a), subparagraph (i) and

Mr. Ancram: When the Bill left the House, it contained eight clauses concerned with travel concessions. It now returns to us with 13 clauses, all of which contain amendments and all but three of which were only tabled in their present form in another place. I would like to explain to the House why the Government felt such radical action was necessary.
During the Bill's passage through the House the Government gave a commitment to introduce provisions for operators of local services to be required to enter a concessionary fare scheme if they were unwilling to do so on a voluntary basis. This power complements the right that operators have to enter any concessionary fare scheme established on a voluntary basis and enjoy its benefits. At short notice, on the Report, the Government tabled new clauses to make the necessary provision for compulsory participation. The principles behind these clauses remain in the amendments that we are now considering, although it has been necessary to refine much of the detail.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not go into all the technical changes that have been made. These have been fully examined in another place. The advent of the compulsory participation provision, which was requested by this House, has required us to recast the form of many of the clauses as they originally appeared in the Bill.
However, more substantively, we recognise that in giving this power to local authorities we have to ensure that it is not used to the detriment of the operator. Following representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), an amendment was introduced to allow compensation to be awarded to an operator who can show that the terms under which he is reimbursed for his compulsory participation are inadequate, either when the initial compulsory participation is imposed or at any time during its course. There is also provision for the Secretary of State to release operators from compulsory participation at any time if the reimbursement is inadequate. There is provision for a time limit to be set on the duration of a single period of compulsory participation so that an authority has to take stock of its arrangements from time to time.
None of these amendments diminish the power of an authority to use its power to invoke compulsory participation—they merely ensure that it is done fairly. Before the amendments on compulsory participation were

introduced, it was felt in some quarters that too much of an advantage rested with the operators. With these amendments, I feel that we have now reached an equilibrium between the interests of the operators and authorities.
A number of other amendments have been tabled to clarify the powers of local authorities and to ensure the effective provision of concessions. A concessionary fares scheme may now be limited to only part of an area so that an authority can use its powers to establish schemes for children, for example, selectively to top up whatever is commercially available. The definition of "children" has been more precisely formulated so that authorities have the power to provide concessions for school children at any time up to their 19th birthday.
The amendments meet the concern expressed by some authorities that they may find difficulty in running an effective scheme by providing that within limits they may control the times of entry to and exit from their scheme by operators. Steps have also been taken to meet the concern expressed by operators that the administration of a scheme might be left to one dominant operator in an area to the disadvantage of his competitors. The Secretary of State now has the power to make regulations to cover that.
Provision has been made also for concessions to be provided on the limited number of services that will continue to be operated directly by the PTE or local authorities following the formation of the new public transport companies.
Finally, I draw the attention of the House to two sets of amendments that are now incorporated within clause 87 that should allay fears that were expressed in another place about the adequacy of local authorities' powers to provide concessions. As it left the House, the Bill was designed to reproduce the powers which authorities already had under the Transport Act 1968 in relation to the services to be covered and the provision of concessions for pensioners, the blind, and those suffering from handicaps which severely impair their ability to walk. It also gave authorities the power to provide concessions for children. However, it became clear during debate and in the light of consultation with the authorities that there was a problem over rail services in the non-metropolitan counties.
The powers in the Bill as drafted reflected the situation in which the metropolitan counties had powers to provide concessions on rail services in their areas as a result of their general responsibilities for the support of those services under section 26 of the 1968 Act. However, there were no corresponding powers for authorities in the shire areas. It appears that a number of non-metropolitan authorities and their equivalent in Scotland are already providing support for rail services. Indeed, in some instances local rail services are at least as important to local transport facilities as the bus services that were covered by the powers under the 1968 Act.
It was therefore decided to remove the distinctions between metropolitan and other areas so that all authorities will have the power to provide concessions on all forms of public passenger transport services.

Mr. David Marshall: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The powers of the non-metropolitan authorities will be extended to cover local travel by rail and services such as ferries and social car schemes. I am sure that the House will agree that this is an improvement.

Mr. David Marshall: The Minister has anticipated what I was about to ask him. I rose to seek clarification on concessionary fares on the ferries in Strathclyde.

Mr. Ancram: It was for that reason that I finished the section with which I was dealing before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he appreciates that there have been areas in Scotland where ferries have been dealt with in the same way previously. The amendment will regularise the position throughout Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. George Park: Perhaps the Minister will be rather more explicit. In Coventry there are at least half a dozen routes which do not make a profit although they are well used by holders of concessionary tickets. What will happen, when the Bill is enacted, to ensure the continuance of service on these routes? The Minister has mentioned that operators who might be interested in tendering for such routes are already expressing doubts about their ability to handle the necessary administration of such schemes.

9 pm

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is bringing together two slightly different aspects of the legislation. In the areas where services currently require subsidy, the Bill provides that those routes should be put out to tender, if the local authority so wishes, to ensure that they are run in the most cost-effective way to the level required by the local authority.
On concessionary fares, authorities will be allowed to draw up their schemes, and it is for them to decide in what areas and to what extent such schemes should apply. That matter is now being regulated, especially by the restructuring part of the Bill that has come to us from another place.
I accept that there are some complexities in what I am setting out, but it is important to appreciate that, if we are to have a scheme that works fairly and properly—many of the ideas for the scheme have come from hon. Members on both sides of the House — we cannot produce something as simple as was originally envisaged.
I come now to another group of amendments from another place, which were tabled by Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, Lord Stallard and Baroness Stedman. I hope that the House will give the Government credit for accepting these amendments. Although they give my right hon. Friend a wide general power to add additional groups to those eligible to receive concessions under clause 87 by order, they reflect the debate in another place about specific problems that have arisen in relation to groups of people who are eligible to receive assistance with travelling expenses under the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948.
Those groups, including people such as the mentally handicapped and the deaf and dumb, are eligible to receive support from social services authorities. However, it has become clear that in some cases—Greater Manchester springs to mind—concessions are being provided not by the social services authority that has the statutory powers, but by the transport authority.
We have reached the conclusion that it would be appropriate to provide a machinery for removing the financial and administrative problems that would result if transport authorities did not have the power to provide concessions for people in those groups. It is in the light of those problems that we accepted the amendments, which I hope will be welcomed by the House.
My right hon. Friend, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, will consider how best the order-making power can be used to extend the coverage of schemes to those in groups covered by the 1948 Act. It is obviously only right that any decision should be taken jointly by both my right hon. Friends, bearing in mind their common responsibilities and the continuing interest that social services authorities inevitably must have in that area. I must, however, emphasise to the House that, in accepting the amendments, the Government have in mind the problems in relation to the 1948 Act.
Although the amendments on concessionary fares are substantial in number, they continue, in a more refined form, the central policy to which this House has already agreed, and extend the coverage of concessionary fares in a manner which I hope the House will support.
I am sorry to have dealt with this matter at some length, but the provisions are new to the House. I hope that I have, at least in outline, explained the way in which the Government see them working.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I wish to speak to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to Lords amendment No. 223.
The Minister did not have the benefit of a Scottish education — [Interruption.] Well, he did not have a Scottish primary or secondary education. At one stage I thought that he was in danger of getting his three Rs wrong because he spoke of radical action, refining much of the Bill and recasting many of its clauses. Frankly, we take the view that the Government, rather than extending the area of concessionary fares and the principles that underlie the system, have actually narrowed the application.
The Minister referred to Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I have just seen a long letter that my hon. Friend wrote to Lord Belstead after the long passage of the Bill in the other place, expressing some misgivings about the way in which the Government sought to restrict some of the concessions which will operate in practice.
I noted what the Minister said about the National Assistance Act of 1948 to which Lord Carmichael also referred in his letter. I am not unmindful of the way in which the legislation applicable to Scotland operated in recent years under the Concessionary Travel for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Act 1980. When discussing concessionary fares we must bear in mind that one of the largest restraints on the operation of concessionary fare schemes is the way in which the Government continue to cut the amount of aid to local authorities. That will be the biggest constraint on the ability of local authorities to provide and finance adequate concessionary schemes. No matter what is said, and no matter what legislation the Government say is there in a discretionary form, if the resources are not available to local authorities the schemes will become inoperable.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that in recent months when I have gone to


see elderly people, on every occasion the inevitable question is, "What is going to be done about concessionary fares?" That is the fear uppermost in people's minds. It is a justifiable fear because, as my hon. Friend said, at the end of the day it depends on the amount of money available from the Government. It is remarkable that a Government who pay lip service to the elderly and the care of the elderly should, in effect, be putting the concessionary fares scheme in danger.

Mr. Craigen: My hon. Friend did not have the advantage that we had of serving hour after hour on the Transport Bill Standing Committee. Even if he had, he would still be unable to assuage the fears of his elderly constituents, because the Minister did not give the guarantees necessary to eliminate those genuine fears. We had a lot of soft soap from Ministers and, as the hours wore on, even some of the most dim-witted Government Backbenchers—there were one or two—began to realise that the concessionary scheme was not going to do all that the Minister claimed it would do.
The second main area in which we have to be wary about the Government's pronouncements is about the extent to which local authorities will be able to exercise discretion. Even where there is a will, we now have ratecapping, and the Government, by reducing the amount of transport subsidy, will have a second bite at local authorities, because, effectively, the Government can reduce what local authorities are able to do to sustain concessionary schemes.
In Scotland the average fare in the regions and islands works out at half fare and, in some instances, at a third fare. I am afraid that that will he squeezed even more because of the reduction in the transport subsidy forthcoming from central Government and because of the way in which the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office will work the principles of rate capping.
The Minister referred to the arrangements for the blind, and I shall put on my spectacles for a minute. Bodies such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the National League of the Blind and Disabled are worried about the position of the partially sighted passengers as a group. Their numbers are not inconsiderable. In March 1982 there were about 58,000 registered partially sighted people in England. In March 1984 the figure was 3,271 in Scotland and 4,876 in Wales. In December 1983 there were 1,230 registered partially sighted people in Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister make it clear that these people will not be disadvantaged by the radical changes, recastings and refinements in the other place? Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove went into the matter in some detail in his letter to Lord Belstead, but I shall not weary the House with the details. It is understandable that a person who spent a bit of time looking at the Bill during its passage through the other place took pen to paper and wrote three pages to the Minister. I hope that the Minister can assuage some of our genuine fears.

Mr. David Marshall: My hon. Friend is right to voice concerns about the future of concessionary fares. Does he agree that it is a matter of not only the lack of resources but the possible lack of services? Does he agree that many areas which have services used by people who benefit from

concessionary fares are likely, because of the Bill's long-term effects, to have drastically reduced services or even no services? What use is a concessionary fare if there are no services to use it on?

Mr. Craigen: I can tell that my hon. Friend was not hauled up the Clyde in a barrel. Obviously, services need to be running before we can benefit from concessionary fares. Our colleagues and I have taken issue with the Government over the rest of their obnoxious legislation. We are well aware that the other clauses will seriously cripple the ability of operators in many parts of the country to run adequate services.
I have been trying to keep within the confines of order, so I have concentrated merely on dealing with concessionary fares. I hope that the House will in due course agree the amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) because they seek not only to broaden the range of groups who should be eligible for concessionary fares but to avoid any confusion from a Government team that was clearly mystified by the whole process during the Bill's passage.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I shall speak in a positive tone, unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) who showed a negative view. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to comment further on the partially sighted to whom the hon. Member for Maryhill rightly alluded. In another place on 24 October the Government accepted an amendment intended to help disabled passengers. I welcome that.
9.15 pm
I want to make a point which may be in danger of being overlooked. Surely our aim is to ensure that the partially sighted are not excluded from the categories for whom concessionary fares may be provided, if local authorities wish. The Government have agreed to include a power for the Secretary of State to specify "other classes of persons" as eligible for concessions in addition to those already listed in the Bill. In other words, we are going further than pensioners, children, full-time students under the age of 18, blind people and those with a seriously impaired ability to walk.
I understand that it is the Government's intention to make an order specifying the other categories who are to be eligible. Lord Belstead, the Minister in another place, referred to the mentally handicapped, the deaf, the dumb and other passengers. He said that the Government would consider how far it would be appropriate for transport authorities to provide concessions for disabled people other than those named in the Bill.
The point should be registered that partially sighted passengers often have the same mobility needs as blind people and should be among those for whom transport authorities may make provision. Partially sighted people may use buses to avoid a hazardous journey by foot involving busy road crossings. A partially sighted person's level of sight may be affected greatly by changing light conditions, such as darkness on a winter morning or shadowy light and dark. Partially sighted people are often found in low income groups and may have difficulty in finding work. Public transport is vital for them.
I am glad that the Government intend to improve the provisions for eligibility for concessionary fares and I am concerned to make sure that the partially sighted are


included, numbering as they do a small category compared with the 130,000 registered blind in the United Kingdom. The Government have argued previously that groups outside those listed in the Bill can be covered if social services departments decide to use their powers under the National Assistance Act 1948. Reference has already been made to that. The Government's acceptance of the amendment in the other place is a welcome recognition that problems arise and that the powers of transport authorities should be widened.
Some authorities include wider categories. The Concessionary Travel for Handicapped Persons (Scotland) Act 1980 extends eligibility in Scotland without the legal complications that arise in the rest of Britain. For example, Tayside and Fife regional councils are among those who give concessionary fares to partially sighted passengers. Thus there is a strong case for that group to be included in categories that are specified as eligible under this legislation. If they are not included, they may be left worse off than they are now.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Opposition Members are disturbed because the Bill places more emphasis on giving fair treatment to operators than to those who are willing to use the transport services. That is demonstrated dramatically in the provisions for concessionary fares. Unfortunately, because of the time restriction, we have to rely on the arguments that were put forward previously.
This is a key issue that will affect many people. In Committee the Government refused to accept amendments which would have ensured a future for concessionary travel instead of the patchwork system which may result. The word "may" in the clause does not give sufficient security for the general provision of concessionary travel throughout the country.
It is hypocritical for any Member to suggest that the Conservatives are concerned about elderly or disabled people not being socially mobile unless there is a concessionary fares system, when the whole public transport system will be severely truncated as a result of the Bill. Conservative members have said in Committee and again today that they want to look after these groups of people but they know that the Secretary of State for the Environment will immediately start cutting the money available and that there is no provision in this or any other legislation to ensure that within the general targets laid down for local authorities or in the rate support grant settlements money can be made available specifically to support concessionary fares schemes.
This is a missed opportunity. The Bill should have provided an opportunity for the Government to go forwards rather than backwards and to show that they are caring and compassionate and want to provide a decent concessionary travel scheme throughout the country. The opportunity has been missed because they do not care. They probably never use public transport and do not appreciate the enormous difficulties that old people, disabled people and young people face, especially in rural areas. The Government have been found lacking in this respect and I hope that some Conservative Members will support the amendment.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: In Committee, Conservative Members were anxious to protect and, indeed, to improve the provisions

for concessionary fares. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State delivered our hopes in full on Report and he seems, indeed, to have improved on that today.
I seek my right hon. Friend's clarification on one aspect — the protection of the legitimate budgeting of local authorities. Members will recall that in Committee I outlined a mechanism whereby a local authority could establish a fair and reasonable valuation of the concessionary pass and thus know at the beginning of the financial year its total commitment for that year. The administrative mechanism whereby that budget was shared among the operators was not in my view, or in that of local authority treasurers, an insurmountable problem.
I seek an assurance from the Government today that under the new provisions local authorities will still be able to establish a finite budget. If they cannot do so, the fear of an open-ended commitment may force some authorities to move reluctantly from a pass scheme to a token scheme when they do not wish to do so. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can give an assurance that finite budgets and therefore passes will still be possible, I believe that the last remaining fears of local authorities can be set aside
We have heard the customary noises from the Opposition and the main thrust of the argument made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has been that even if the Bill achieves all these things, any failure to deliver a concessionary fares scheme will be the fault of wicked central Government failing to provide the resources. In fact, as anyone who has been involved in local government knows, it is not central Government who will determine whether the provision will be made. The rather perverse priorities of some authorities will be the key to whether old age pensioners are threatened. Local authorities which have their priorities right will always find the money for a scheme of the kind that has been set out today.

Mr. Parris: It is rich of Opposition Members to spend their weekends storming up and down the country telling elderly people that their concessionary fares scheme will be taken away, and then spend the weekdays reporting to the House that they have encountered much alarm among elderly people about the future of their pension schemes.
The Government have been able to allay two anxieties which existed in Derbyshire. We were worried about our ability to support concessionary fares schemes on the railways as well as the buses and my hon. Friend has confirmed that that will now be possible. Secondly, we were worried about provision for the mentally handicapped. We knew that we could make such provision through the social services but it would be more sensible to make it through the county council's transport department. My hon. Friend the Minister said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be able to arrange for that by order. Those are two small but helpful alterations to the Bill and I welcome them.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for the appreciation that they have shown for the amendments which have been made. As I said earlier, I believe that the scheme we are putting forward now is an improvement. It is largely based on the suggestions made by hon. Members during the progress of the Bill. It is significant that in Committee and on Report Opposition Members argued about the details of the concessionary fares


provisions within this legislation. Tonight they cannot do that. Only one Opposition Member spoke to the details of Opposition amendments. They could merely revert to singing the same old tune—that deregulation was not going to work, that there were going to be fewer buses and that local authorities would not be provided with enough money.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Be careful.

Mr. Ancram: We have heard all these words and songs over and over again during the passage of the Bill. I am reassured tonight that the provisions we are putting forward on concessionary fares are right, because Opposition Members were cautious not to criticise the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) who moved an amendment which contained four extra categories of fares but did not mention any of them. That shows the level of confidence the hon. Member has in his amendment, so we need not spend much time dealing with it.
A number of important points have been raised during what has been a useful debate. The first relates to the partially sighted. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and by the hon. Member for Maryhill. The partially sighted are included among the group for whom assistance may be provided under the National Assistance Act 1948 and they are affected by the provisions I referred to earlier.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport now has powers under the amendments which have come from another place. Subsection (8)(f) of the new clause which is Lords amendment No. 223 allows him by order to specify other classes of person. I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for York that my right hon. Friend will wish to consider whether the partially sighted should be covered under a new order made by the order-making power.
It is important to state that in terms of a number of the categories mentioned tonight, that new order-making power is available, and serious consideration would have to be given to individual cases.

Mr. Craigen: Will the Minister guarantee that he will include that category?

Mr. Ancram: The purpose of having that power available is so that when categories are brought to my right hon. Friend's attention, he can consider them. The hon. Member for Maryhill referred to a letter from his noble Friend Lord Carmichael. Lord Carmichael asked us to accept his amendment and we did so. I believe that the points made by Lord Carmichael in that letter have been met by these provisions.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) suggested that the purpose of these amendments was to be fair to operators. I must say openly that we wish to ensure that we are fair to operators and also to authorities. During the debate there has been a tendency to swing from one to the other, but I believe that we now have the equilibrium right; it is for that reason that the provisions are welcomed by my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) mentioned the ability of authorities to operate concessionary fare schemes without having to move to tokens. Depending upon the method of reimbursement that they adopt, authorities can be

reasonably clear at the start of the financial year about the cash that they will have to pay over that year. To ensure that operators are properly reimbursed for journeys that they carry out, authorities may need to make adjustments after the end of the financial year. There cannot be precise, finite budgeting on such a matter, but I believe that within these provisions there is sufficient flexibility to allow past schemes to continue.
9.30 pm
Throughout the course of the legislation there has been debate about whether concessionary fare schemes would continue. Hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have talked tonight of people's fears as to whether concessionary fares would continue. I do not suggest that it was necessarily him, but Opposition Members started to put about the scare story that the Bill meant the end of concessionary fares long before the provisions were discussed in Committee. That has caused a great deal of unnecessary distress and fear. We are debating a concessionary fare scheme which, I believe, will provide for the type of concessionary fares that we wish to see across the country. I hope that my hon. Friends will reject the amendments moved by the Opposition and will approve the amendments from another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 132 agreed to.

New Clause

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN CERTAIN COUNCILS AND LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT

Lords amendment: No. 133, after clause 61 insert—
.— (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any non-metropolitan county or district council in England and Wales and London Regional Transport shall each have power to enter into any agreement or arrangements with the other undert which that council or (as the case may be) London Regional Transport underake to contribute towards any expenditure incurred by the other party to the agreement or arrangements in making payments to a person providing a public passenger transport service under any agreement entered into by that other party in exercise of any power that other party may have to secure the provision of that service.
(2) The agreement under which the payments are made must have been entered into in pursuance of the agreement or arrangements between the council in question and London Regional Transport.
(3) The power of London Regional Transport under section 3(2) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (contracting-out powers) to enter into and carry out agreements with any person for the provision by that person of any public passenger transport service, if exercised in pursuance of any agreement or arrangements entered into under this section, shall be limited to cases where the service in question would not be provided without subsidy and shall also be subject to sections 83 to 86 of this Act.
(4) Section 28 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (agreements with respect to the provision by London Regional Transport of extra services and facilities financed by certain other authorities) shall cease to apply in relation to agreements with district councils, and accordingly—

(a) in subsection (1) of that section—

(i) the word "or" shall be inserted at the end of paragraph (b); and
(ii) paragraph (d) and the word "or" immediately preceding it shall be omitted; and
(b) in subsection (2) of that section—

(i) the word "and" shall be inserted after the word "borough"; and
(ii) the words "and the council of any district" shall be omitted.


(5) Subsection (3) above is without prejudice to section 6 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (obligation of London Regional Transport to invite tenders for carrying on activities in certain circumstances).

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 215, in clause 82, page 83, line 36, at end insert
and in sections 83 to 86 of this Act include references to London Regional Transport in relation to any exercise of their power under section 3(2) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (contracting-out powers) which by virtue of section (Cooperation between certain councils and London Regional Transport) (3) of this Act is subject to those sections.

No. 415, in schedule 7, page 154, line 11, column 3, at beginning insert—



"In section 28, in subsection (1) paragraph (d) and the word "or" immediately preceding it, and in subsection (2) the words "and the council of any district"."

Mr. Ridley: An important objective of the Bill is to ensure that local authorities co-operate with one another to achieve the most effective use of public funds. That cooperation will be especially important in the case of cross-boundary services, because travel patterns do not always respect adminstrative boundaries. Without these amendments, the Bill would not provide for such an arrangement between London Regional Transport, which is of course not a local authority, and adjoining county and district councils in subsidising services in which they both have an interest. The amendments put that right. They enable LRT to take the lead with a contribution from the council or vice versa. When LRT takes the lead in securing services under such an arrangement, it will be bound by the Bill's tendering provisions for local bus services in the same way as local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62

EXCLUSION OF POWERS OF CERTAIN COUNCILS TO RUN BUS UNDERTAKINGS

Lords amendment: No. 134, in page 61, line 32, leave out from "service" to "until" in line 33.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 135, in page 61, line 35, at end insert—
Reference below in this Part of this Act to a council operating a bus undertaking are references to any council to whom this subsection applies.

Mr. Ancram: The amendments are solely technical and unless the House wishes me to do so I do not believe that they need be further explained.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 135 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 136, in clause 62, page 62, line 30, leave out "to" and insert
(according to the context) to—
(i)

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:

No. 137, in clause 62, page 62, line 35, at end insert
(ii) "; or all property of the council used or appropriated for use and all rights and liabilities of the council subsisting for the purposes of any such activities.".

No. 139, in clause 63, page 63, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) Subject to subsections (3A) and (3B) below, a council's bus undertaking shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act as forming part of a joint undertaking if the services for the carriage of passengers by road provided in the course of the activities of the council's bus undertaking are wholly or mainly provided under any agreement for—

(a) the provision or operation of those services by a body acting on the joint behalf of that council and one or more other councils; or
(b) the operation of those services by any company operating those services in conjunction with services for the carriage of passengers by road provided by that company.
(3A) Subsection (3)(a) above only applies where the agreement provides for the distribution among the parties on its termination of—

(a) all assets, or the proceeds of all assets, used or appropriated for use for the purpose of providing services for the carriage of passengers by road under the agreement; or
(b) all such assets or proceeds excluding only land or the proceeds of disposal of land.
(3B) Subsection (3)(b) above only applies where—

(a) the agreement includes provision for securing that the parties on termination of the agreement hold shares of equal value in assets required to be brought into account on termination of the agreement; and
(b) those assets include all assets so used or appropriated for use."

No. 140, in clause 63, page 63, line 35, leave out "or arrangements".

No. 141, in clause 64, page 64, line 7, leave out "or arrangements as are" and insert "as is".

No. 143, in clause 65, page 65, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert
In any case within section 63(3)(a) of this Act both or all the councils participating in the joint undertaking may".

No. 145, in clause 65 page 65, leave out "or arrangements".

No. 146, in clause 65, page 66, line 11, leave out from "case" to second "the" in line 13 and insert
within section 63(3)(b) of this Act".

No. 147, in clause 65, page 66, line 14, leave out "that party" and insert
the company carrying on the joint undertaking".

No. 148, in clause 65, page 66, line 16, at end insert "by the council concerned".

No. 149, in clause 65, page 66, line 24, after first "of' insert—
(i) all property rights and liabilities of the body carrying on that undertaking; and
(ii) ".

No. 150, in clause 65, page 66, line 43, leave out from "and" to "share" in line 1 on page 67 and insert
, in any case within section 63(3)(b) of this Act, for the transfer to the company carrying on the joint undertaking of any property, rights and liabilities of the council concerned which are comprised in that company's".

No. 151, in clause 65, page 67, line 5, leave out
any joint body established for the purposes of"
and insert "the body carrying on".

No. 152, in clause 65, page 67, line 20, at beginning insert
in any case within section 63(3)(a) of this Act,".

No. 153, in clause 65, page 67, line 20, leave out
any joint body established for the purposes of"
and insert "the body carrying on".

No. 154, in clause 65, page 67, leave out lines 22 to 27.

No. 157, in clause 68, page 70, line 12, leave out
councils to whom section 63(1) of this Act applies
and insert
such councils as are referred to in subsection (2) above".

No. 188, in clause 71, page 74, line 41, leave out "person" and insert "council".

No. 212, in clause 79, page 82, line 7, leave out "(3) and".

Mr. David Mitchell: The purpose of this group of amendments, voluminous though it is, is to clarify the meaning of "joint undertaking". Some bus undertakings exist under agreements giving rights over assets to more than one council, and would have fallen outside the definition of "joint undertaking" as originally drafted. Transfers by order under clause 65 would not have applied. It would, however, be inappropriate for the property rights and liabilities of those undertakings to be transferred under the scheme which makes provisions that apply to other district councils, since the parties might not be able to reach agreement about the allocation of property and other assets and the order - making procedure would be needed to settle matters. The amendments make it clear that in cases of that sort the undertakings fall within the definition of "joint undertaking", and are therefore subject to the order making process. We have also clarified that public transport companies can be formed as joint companies under the provisions only by two or more councils.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 137 to 141 agreed to.

Clause 65

ORDERS FOR TRANSFER OF JOINT UNDERTAKINGS TO COMPANIES FORMED UNDER SECTION 63

Lords amendment: No. 142, in page 65, line 12, after "undertaking" insert
(whether or not then vested in that council)

Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 144, in page 65, line 21, after "undertaking" insert
and (without prejudice to that) to all property rights and liabilities of the body carrying on that undertaking

No. 155, in clause 66, page 68, line 22, leave out "and" No. 156, in page 68, line 28, at end insert
; and (e) with respect to the consideration to be provided by any such person for any transfer under the order.

No. 159, in clause 69, page 70, line 41, at end insert—
The reference above in this subsection to the transfer to a public transport company of its initial undertaking is a reference, in relation to any such company, to the transfer or (if more than one) the first transfer of property, rights and liabilities to that company under section 58(7), 60(10), 64(7) or 66(2) of this Act.

No. 189, in clause 71, page 74, line 3, leave out from 
"company" to "any" in line 4 and insert
so formed by way of consideration for

No. 199, in clause 75, page 76, line 42, leave out from "in" to "requires" in line 1 on page 77 and insert
pursuance of any provision made by any scheme or order under this Part of this Act in connection with any transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the company in question for which that scheme or order provides

No. 200, in page 77, line 26, leave out "and" and insert "or"

No. 202, in clause 76, page 78, line 25, leave out "and" and insert "or"

No. 207, in clause 78, page 79, line 17, leave Out "or" and insert "and"

No. 210, in clause 79, page 80, line 44 leave out
"subsection (6) below" and insert
the following provisions of this section

No. 211, in page 81, line 10, at end insert—
(6A) Any order under this section may make modifications in Schedule 4 for the purposes of its application to a transfer effected by that order.

No. 271, in clause 113, page 111, line 12, leave out "and" "or"

No. 273, in page 111, line 17, at beginning insert (or partly in one way and partly in the other)

No. 274, in page 111, line 19, at end insert
(including in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of that, provision with respect to the consideration to be provided by the transferee for any transfer under the scheme)

No. 275, in page 111, line 20, leave out "subsection (4) below" and insert
the following provisions of this section

No. 276, in page 111, line 34, at end insert—
(5) The Secretary of State may by order make modifications in Schedule 4 for the purposes of its application to transfers under section 50(4), 58(7), 60(10) or 64(7) of this Act.

Mr. Mitchell: This is a group of technical amendments relating to transfer schemes, designed to ensure that they can work properly in all the circumstances that might arise. The amendments also make it clear that the proposals to transfer property, rights or liabilities put forward if a council participates in a joint undertaking may relate to property, rights or liabilities, which at the time the proposal is put forward, are vested in the joint undertaking rather than in the individual authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 143 to 191 agreed to.

Clause 72

APPLICATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL CONTROLS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT COMPANIES

Lords amendment: No. 192, in page 74, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on page 75.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 193, in page 75, line 22, leave out
Subject to the following provisions of this section

No. 195, in page 75, leave out lines 30 to 45 and insert—
(5) Where a public transport company's controlling authority are a composite authority, the duty imposed by subsection (4) above is a joint duty of both or all of the component councils of that authority.

Mr. Ridley: This is an important amendment. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) in his place, because he pressed very hard for such a scheme.
During earlier debates in the House and in another place there was criticism of our proposal that all the capital expenditure incurred by the new public transport companies should count for capital control purposes as though it were incurred by their controlling authorities. The amendments respond to that concern. They remove the companies' own expenditure from the capital control system. There will still be control over the extent of their external finance. The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 ensures that capital spending financed by the controlling authority remains subject to control, and clause 72 still provides that companies can borrow only from the controlling authority except for temporary loans and overdrafts. We are therefore placing control over the amount that the companies can raise by external grants or borrowing while allowing them full freedom to deploy their own resources. That is fully in line with the arguments put forward by Lord Shepherd in the debate in the other place, when he emphasised that capital expenditure should come from internal resources when possible, and that the companies should aim to replace their assets by the amounts that they can generate.
We believe that that is the best way to encourage the new companies to make business-like pricing and investment decisions. I hope that the House will welcome the change. We shall consult the local authority associations and the PTEs on the working of the new system as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 193 to 205, and amendment No. 205(a) agreed to.

Clause 78

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 206, in page 79, line 10, at end insert "or pension rights"

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 209, in page 80, line 14, after "emoluments" insert "or pension rights"

No. 284, in clause 120, page 117, line 5, at end insert—
"pension rights" includes, in relation to any person, all forms of right to or eligibility for the present or future payment of a pension, and any expectation of the accruer of a pension under any customary practice, and includes a right of allocation in respect of the present or future payment of a pension;

Mr. Ridley: The amendment simply ensures that the power to make compensation regulations in clause 81 is properly comprehensive. We originally thought that the clause would cover pension rights by virtue of the word "emoluments", but subsequent legal advice is that that is not so. The amendment seeks to put that right.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 207 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 208, in page 80, line 2, after "of' insert
or, in Scotland, sequestration of the estate of, or granting of a trust deed for creditors by,

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is a minor technical amendment. It clarifies Scottish legal terminology.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 209 to 218 agreed to.

Clause 85

EXCEPTIONS FROM SECTION 83

Lords amendment: No. 219, in page 86, line 37, leave out "or".

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 220, in page 86, line 39, at end insert "or
(c) securing the provision of a service to meet any public transport requirement which has arisen unexpectedly and ought in the opinion of the authority to be met without delay;

Mr. Ridley: The amendments will allow authorities to enter into emergency subsidy agreements to meet any public transport needs that arise unexpectedly. It gives added flexibility for authorities to take prompt action without having to wait for the results of a tendering process. Of course, authorities will, as now, be required to invite tenders as soon as possible afterwards.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 220 to 222 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 223, leave out clause 87 and insert the following new clause—

Travel concession schemes

. — (1) Any local authority, or any two or more local authorities acting jointly, may establish a travel concession scheme for the provision of travel concessions on journeys on public passenger transport services—

(a) between places in the principal area covered by the scheme;
(b) between such places and places outside but in the vicinity of that area; or
(c) between places outside but in the vicinity of that area; by operators of such services participating in the scheme.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the principal area covered by a scheme under this section is—

(a) the area of the local authority concerned or. where two or more such authorities are concerned, the area comprising the areas of both or all those authorities; or
(b) if an area comprised within the area which would be the principal area under paragraph (a) above is specified in the scheme as being the principal area to which the scheme applies, the area so specified.
(4) Any travel concession scheme established under this section shall define—

(a) the travel concessions which are for the time being to be provided by operators participating in the scheme;
(b) the description of persons eligible in accordance with subsection (8) below to receive travel concessions under any such scheme who are for the time being to qualify for travel concessions provided under scheme; and
(c) the dates in any year currently adopted as the dates on which operators may be admitted to participate in the scheme under section (Right of eligible service operators to participate in travel concession schemes) of this Act (referred to below in this section as the standard admission dates);
and may include particulars of any other arrangements for the time being adopted by the authority or authorities concerned in establishing the scheme with respect to the operation, scope and application of the scheme.
(5) Any such scheme may define the standard admission dates by specifying particular dates, or by referring to dates of any


specified description or separated by intervals of any specified length; but those dates, however determined, must not be separated by intervals of a length exceeding such period as may be prescribed.
(6) Arrangements adopted by the authority or authorities concerned in establishing any such scheme with respect to the operation, scope and application of the scheme (including the matters specifically mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4) above) may differ for different descriptions of concessions or services to which the scheme applies.
(7) Subject to section 88 of this Act, where an operator participating in any such scheme in respect of any services operated by him provides travel concessions in accordance with the scheme for persons travelling on those services, the authority responsible for administration of the scheme or (as the case may be) the authorities so responsible in such proportions respectively as they may agree among themselves shall reimburse that operator for providing those concessions.
(8) The persons eligible to receive travel concessions under any such scheme are—

(a) men over the age of sixty-five years and women over the age of sixty years;
(b) persons whose age does not exceed sixteen years;
(c) persons whose age exceeds sixteen years but does not exceed eighteen years and who are undergoing full-time education;
(d) blind persons, that is to say, persons so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which sight is essential;
(e) persons suffering from any disability or injury which, in the opinion of the authority or any of the authorities responsible for administration of the scheme, seriously impairs their ability to walk; and
(f) such other classes of persons as the Secretary of State may by order specify.")
(9) In this section "local authority"—

(a) means the council of a county or district in England and Wales or a regional or islands council in Scotland; and
(b) includes also, in relation to England and Wales, a metropolitan county passenger transport authority.
(10) Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this section and in the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to schemes under this section to the authority or authorities responsible for administration of a scheme under this section are references—

(a) except in a case to which paragraph (b) below applies, to the authority concerned in establishing the scheme or, where two or more authorities are so concerned, to both or all those authorities acting jointly; or
(b) where the authority or one of the authorities concerned in establishing the scheme are a Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area in England and Wales,
to the Passenger Transport Executive for that Authority's area or (as the case may require) to that Executive and the other authority or authorities so concerned acting jointly.
(11) Where a Passenger Transport Authority have established a scheme under this section, whether alone or jointly with any other authority or authorities, they shall notify the Passenger Transport Executive for their area of any proposal to vary the scheme, giving particulars of the proposed variation.")

Read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment No. 223, in line 39, leave out paragraphs (a) to (f) and insert—

(a) any persons in receipt of any form of pension or who are over the age of sixty in the case of women and sixty-five in the case of men.
(b) all persons under the age of eighteen who are not in full time work.
(c) any persons who in the opinion of the authority suffer from any disability which in the opinion of the authority makes that person unable to rely on private forms of transport.
(d) any other persons whose receipt of travel concessions, would in the opinion of the authority, improve the efficiency of the public transport service provided.'. —[Mr. Craigen.]

Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 228.

Division No. 307]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Alton, David
Hardy, Peter


Anderson, Donald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Ashton, Joe
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Home Robertson, John


Barron, Kevin
Howells, Geraint


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Benn, Tony
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bidwell, Sydney
Janner, Hon Greville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm
Lambie, David


Buchan, Norman
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Litherland, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Livsey, Richard


Clarke, Thomas
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clay, Robert
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Loyden, Edward


Cohen, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Coleman, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McKelvey, William


Corbett, Robin
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Craigen, J. M.
McTaggart, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Martin, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Michie, William


Douglas, Dick
Mikardo, Ian


Dubs, Alfred
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ellis, Raymond
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Harry
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Faulds, Andrew
Park, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom


Forrester, John
Penhaligon, David


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter


Foulkes, George
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Radice, Giles


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Randall, Stuart


George, Bruce
Redmond, M.


Godman, Dr Norman
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Golding, John
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gourlay, Harry
Robertson, George


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)






Rogers, Allan
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Rooker, J. W.
Tinn, James


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Torney, Tom


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Weetch, Ken


Sheerman, Barry
Welsh, Michael


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
White, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Wilson, Gordon


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Straw, Jack
Mr. Roger Thomas.


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Alexander, Richard
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Ancram, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Galley, Roy


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baldry, Tony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Gower, Sir Raymond


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Gregory, Conal


Benyon, William
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grist, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Ground, Patrick


Blackburn, John
Grylls, Michael


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter
Harris, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hayward, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Heddle, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brinton, Tim
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Browne, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Bruinvels, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Bulmer, Esmond
Lamont, Norman


Burt, Alistair
Lang, Ian


Butler, Hon Adam
Lawler, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Carttiss, Michael
Lightbown, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lilley, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lord, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Luce, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Lyell, Nicholas


Colvin, Michael
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Conway, Derek
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cope, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Cormack, Patrick
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Corrie, John
Maclean, David John


Crouch, David
McQuarrie, Albert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Madel, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Major, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Malone, Gerald


Dover, Den
Marland, Paul


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Mates, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Mather, Carol


Durant, Tony
Maude, Hon Francis


Evennett, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian





Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mellor, David
Shersby, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Silvester, Fred


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miscampbell, Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Speed, Keith


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Speller, Tony


Monro, Sir Hector
Spence, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spencer, Derek


Moore, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Squire, Robin


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stern, Michael


Murphy, Christopher
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Terlezki, Stefan


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powley, John
Viggers, Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Waddington, David


Price, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raffan, Keith
Walden, George


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wheeler, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitfield, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Whitney, Raymond


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendments Nos. 223 to 241 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 242, after clause 95, insert the following new clause—

GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT, ETC., OF RURAL PASSENGER SERVICES IN WALES AND SCOTLAND

. — (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury make in such cases as he thinks fit a grant to any person for the purpose of securing the establishment, continuance or improvement of any public passenger transport service within the opinion of the Secretary of State is or will be for the benefit of persons residing in any rural area in Wales or Scotland.
(2) In the case of any grant under this section for the purpose of securing the continuance of an existing service—

(a) the service must be one which was established with the assistance of a grant under this section; and


(b) the grant must be for securing its continuance during such period from the time when it was first operated as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate in the case of that service.
(3) In the case of any grant under this section for the purpose of securing the improvement of an existing service the improvement in view must be one which appears to the Secretary of State to involve an innovative approach to the use of vehicles, equipment or other facilities in providing the service.
(4) Grants under this section shall be of such amount and subject to such conditions (including conditions requiring their repayment in specified circumstances) as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine, either generally or in relation to any particular cases or classes of case.

Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 243, after clause 95, insert the following new clause—

Transitional rural bus grants

. —(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, make in such cases as he thinks fit a grant to any person in respect of qualifying mileage run at any time during the period of four years beginning with the date on which this section comes into force by vehicles used by that person in operating a service which at the time in question is a service eligible for grant under this section.
(2) A service is eligible for grant under this section at any time when—

(a) it is a service qualifying for fuel duty grant;
(b) it is being operated wholly or partly within a rural area in Great Britain (outside London); and
(c) it meets such other requirements as the Secretary of State thinks fit to impose;
and in subsection (1) above "qualifying mileage" means, in relation to any vehicle, mileage run by that vehicle within any such rural area.
(3) Grants under this section shall be of such amount and subject to such conditions (including conditions requiring their repayment in specified circumstances) as the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine, either generally or in relation to any particular cases or classes of case.")

No. 252. in page 99, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 10.

No. 253, in page 99, line 13, at end insert
(1A) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a service is a service qualifying for fuel duty grant at any time when fuel used in operating the service falls to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating grant payable to the operator of the service under section 92 of the Finance Act 1965 (grant to operators of bus services towards duty charged on bus fuel).

No. 287, in clause 121 page 118, line 39, leave out
"95" and insert
(Grants for establishment, etc., of rural passenger services in Wales and Scotland), (Transitional rural bus grants)"

Mr. Mitchell: the new provisions do not mean any fundamental change. They describe in more detail the powers to make the rural grants.
Clause 95, as it stands, apparently gives the Secretary of State very wide powers to make grants, so wide that I am advised that its interpretation could have given rise to serious difficulties in its practical application. The new clauses are designed to replace clause 95 and define with greater precision the two grants that we propose to pay towards rural services.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this amendment involves privilege.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Lords amendment No. 243 also involves privilege.

Lords amendment No. 24.3 agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I will ensure that the appropriate entry in made in the Journal.

Clause 96

GRANTS TOWARDS DUTY CHARGED ON BUS FUEL

Lords amendment: No. 244, in page 97, line 16, leave out "In section 92" and insert "(1) In section 92(1)"

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No 245, in page 97, line 17, leave out from "fuel" to "In" in line 35 and insert—

(a) the words "any bus service" shall be ommitted; and
(b) there shall be inserted at the end the words—
a bus service which is of a description specified for the purposes of this section and which meets any conditions which may be specified in relation to that description of service.
(2) For subsection (8) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(8)
No. 246, in page 97, leave out
"wholly or mainly available to the general public and

No. 247, in page 98, line 7, leave out "the regulations" and insert—
regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.
(8A) Any statutory instrument containing regulations made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

No. 387, in schedule 7, page 150, line 20, at end insert—

"1965 c. 25.
The Finance Act 1965.
In section 92(1), the words "any bus service"

Lords amendments Nos. 245 and 246 involve privilege.

Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
These amendments delete the requirement that a bus service should be
wholly or mainly available to the general public
in order to qualify for fuel duty rebate. They also make clear that, in specifying descriptions of bus services which qualify for rebate, the Secretary of State may specify conditions in relation to the description.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 245 to 247 agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I will ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 97

UNREGISTERED AND UNRELIABLE LOCAL SERVICES: REDUCTION OF FUEL DUTY GRANT

Lords amendment:No. 248, in page 98, line 10, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
that the operator of a local service has, without reasonable excuse—

(a) failed to operate a local service registered under section 6 of this Act; or
(b) to a significant extent operated a local sell, ice in contravention of that section;"

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:

No. 249, in page 98, line 19, leave out subsection (3).

No. 250, in page 98, line 27, leave out "the" and insert "any"

Mr. Ancram: These amendments are designed to improve clause 97 so that it operates more fairly, and to bring it into line with clause 25.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 249 to 253 agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 245, in page 97, line 17, leave out from ("fuel") to ("In") in line 35 and insert—
("(a) the words "any bus service" shall be omitted; and
(b) there shall be inserted at the end the words—
a bus service which is of a description specified for the purposes of this section and which meets any conditions which may be specified in relation to that description of service.".
(2) For subsection (8) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(8)")

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: Nos. 267, in page 108, line 34, leave out subsection (10).

No. 279, insert the following new clause—Functions of Passenger Transport Authorities and Executives supplementary.
. —(1) In Part II of the 1968 Act, the references to that Part of that Act or (as the case may be) to that Act mentioned in subsection (2) below shall include references to this Act.
(2) Those references are—

(a) the references to that Part of that Act in section 12(2), (3)(d) and (g) (borrowing powers of Executive) and in section 15(5) (expenditure by Authority in performing their functions to be defrayed by Executive); and
(b) the reference to that Act in section 12(5)(b) (which refers to rights of priority in respect of any liability assumed by or transferred to an Executive in pursuance of that Act)."

Mr. Ancram: The amendment inserts a new clause which I hope will be welcome to the House. It refers specifically to certain borrowing powers available to the PTEs under the Transport Act 1968, to ensure that they are available to executives in pursuance of their functions under this Act. The other two amendments remove the provisions that extended particular provision of the 1968 Act selectively to only some of the PTAs' and PTEs' functions under the Bill. These are unnecessary if Lords amendment No. 254 is agreed to.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Questions on the remaining Lords amendments.

Lords amendments Nos. 255 to 421 agreed to. —[Some with Special Entry.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, the Housing Bill [Lords], the Housing Associations Bill [Lords], the Housing (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Landlord and Tenant Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neubert.]

Housing Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[MR. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

OTHER DESCRIPTIONS OF AUTHORITY

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert—
'(e)"local authority" means a county, district or London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and in sections 45(2)(b), 50(2), 51(6), 80(1), 157(1), 171(2), 438, 441, 442, 443, 444(4), 452(2), 453(2), 573(1), paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2, grounds 7 and 12 in Schedule 3, ground 5 in Schedule 4, paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 5, paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 6 and Schedule 17 includes the Inner London Education Authority and a joint authority established by Part IV of the Local Government Act 1985.'.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak generally on the amendments not only to the Housing Bill but to the Housing Associations Bill, the Housing (Consequential Provisions) Bill and the Landlord and Tenant Bill. The amendments are essentially of two kinds-first to take account of the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 and, secondly, minor drafting corrections and improvemennts.
The Local Governmet Act has altered the law concerning certain local authorities and, if these Bills are to represent the law as it now is, it is necessary for certain amendments to be made. They can be divided into three groups. First are the amendments to remove references to the Greater London council — references to county councils remain to cover shire counties— and to add references to the new bodies established by the Local Government Act — the new Inner London Education Authority, the joint bodies established by part IV and the residuary bodies.
The same drafting scheme is followed as in the Local Government Act. References to ILEA and to the joint bodies are inserted in the housing provisions, but the position of residuary bodies, whose duration is limited, is dealt with in schedule 13 to the Local Government Act, referring to the relevant housing functions. In consequence of the abolition of the strategic functions of the GLC, a certain amount of re-arrangement of the Housing Bill is required, principally the removal of schedule 1 and the incorporation of the surviving provisions elsewhere.
The number of amendments to the Housing (Consequential Provisions) Bill is accounted for by the fact that the abolition of the GLC makes it possible greatly to simplify the definition of "local housing authority" in outlying enactments.
The second group of amendments arising as a result of the Local Government Act are those that put back the commencement of the consolidation to 1 April 1986, when the Local Government Act comes into force. A paragraph is also to be inserted into schedule 3 to the Housing (Consequential Provisions) Bill to make it clear that what is consolidated is the law as it stands after the Local Government Act has come into force, although the Acts


all come into force on the same day. It also makes it clear that references in the consolidation to things done by or in relation to the local authorities before 1 April 1986 continue to include things done by, or in relation to, councils abolished on that date.
The third group is of consequential amendments of housing provisions in various GLC Acts, which also apply to London borough councils. These amendments were not included earlier because of the pending Local Government Bill, but in the event they are purely consequential on the consolidation and are not affected by the Local Government Act.
The minor drafting corrections and improvements are largely to secure consistency of style and expression, to correct minor mistakes which have come to light and to deal with other small points, such as removing references to the Development Land Tax Act 1976 which has been repealed by the Finance Act.
On Second Reading on 21 October 1985 the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) drew attention to the work of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, the value of which is recognised by the House. This Committee considers consolidation Bills after they have received their Second Reading in the other place. It then reports to both Houses. Any amendments suggested by the joint Committee are incorporated into the Bill in the other place before it comes to this House.
However, sometimes it is the case that while a Bill is in progress, other Acts change the law, or small drafting or technical matters come to light. In these cases the usual procedure is for the draftsman to submit amendments to the chairman of the Joint Committee as a matter of courtesy and to enable him to comment, should he wish to do so. While there may be no formal requirement, the practice is well established and enables both Houses to deal with such amendments with greater confidence.
In this case the draftsman followed the established practice and submitted all, bar one, of the amendments made to take account of the provisions of the Local Government Act and some of the drafting corrections and improvements. The chairman raised some small points, which the draftsman incorporated. However, due to the absence of the chairman, Lord Brightman, following illness, it was not possible to submit to him before the Committee stage, originally fixed for 24 October 1985, the rest of the amendments, nor those already submitted and commented upon.
The concern expressed about the House considering the amendments in these circumstances led to the agreement through the usual channels for the Committee stage to be put off until today. I entirely understand and accept the grounds for the concern of the hon. Member for Newcastle on Tyne, East. At a late hour I inadvertently expressed myself in a slightly unfortunate way about the problem of getting information to him about amendments. I entirely understand the view that he took about that, and I regret what I said on that occasion.
This has enabled the amendments, as tabled, to be submitted to the chairman over the weekend. I understand that he has seen them and that he is content. In those circumstances and, since they do not change the existing law and represent pure consolidation, I hope that the Committee can move on to consider them in the spirit of co-operation usual for consolidation measures. Before doing so, once again may I pay tribute to the work of the joint committee and to its chairman. It is apparent from

what I have said that the committee plays a crucial part in these matters. I am sure that the House of Commons will wish to join me in expressing our gratitude. I commend the amendments to this Committee.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I fully accept the Solicitor-General's apology for the misunderstanding which occurred last week over the timing of the Opposition's receipt of the amendments. The House has rights. It is only proper that the Opposition and the Committee as a whole should be assured that we are agreeing to consolidation. I am now satisfied that we are agreeing to consolidation—indeed, very good consolidation. I endorse the thanks of the Solicitor-General to the Committee and its staff.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 disagreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 disagreed to.

Clauses 10 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR HOUSING PURPOSES

Amendments made:
No. 4, in page 7, line 2, after '14', insert
`and (Additional powers of authorities in London) (1)'.

No. 5, in page 7, line 18, after 'authorised', insert 'to acquire land compulsorily'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 to 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

AVOIDANCE OF CERTAIN DISPOSALS OF HOUSES WITHOUT CONSENT

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 19, line 28, leave out `given by section 9' and insert
'applicable by virtue of the definition of "housing accommodation" in section 56'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

DISPOSALS IN RELATION TO WHICH TO SS. 46 TO 5I APPLY

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 20, line 12, at end insert—
'(3) The following provisions—
section 170 (power of Secretary of State to give assistance in connection with legal proceedings), and
section 181 (jurisdiction of county court),
apply to proceedings and questions arising under this section and sections 46 to 51 as they apply to proceedings and questions arising under Part V (the right to buy).' — [The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 46 and 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

INFORMATION AS TO RELEVANT COSTS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 22, line 8, leave out 'dwelling-house' and insert 'house'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 49 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

MINOR DEFINITIONS

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 25, line 6, at end insert—
'housing accommodation" includes flats, lodging-houses and hostels, and "house" shall be similarly construed:.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART II

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 25, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—


'house
section 56


housing accommodation
section 56'.

No. 11, in page 25, line 37, at end insert—


'lease
section 621'.

No. 12, in page 26, line 3, at end insert—
`(and see section 452(3))'.

No. 13, in page 26, line 10, at end insert—


'tenancy and tenant
section 621'.



—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 57, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 58 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

PROTECTION OF PROPERTY OF HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 34, line 29, at end insert—
'(8) References in this section to personal property of the applicant include personal property of any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

THE LANDLORD CONDITION

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 39, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert 'a local authority'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 81 to 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 154

REGISTRATION OF TITLE

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 81, line 2, leave out
'granted for a term of which not more than 21 years are unexpired'
and insert
'a lease for a term of which not more than 21 years are unexpired or, as the case may be, a lease granted for a term not exceeding 21 years'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 154, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 155 to 172 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 173

EXCLUSION OF SHARED OWNERSHIP LEASES GRANTED UNDER THIS PART

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 93, line 41, leave out 'the 1967 Act' and insert—
'the Leasehold Reform Act 1967'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 173, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 174 to 187 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 188

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART V

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 101, line 37, column 2, at end insert `(and see section 452(3))'.—[The Solicitor-General.]'

Clause 188, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 189 to 207 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 208

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART VI

Amendment made: No. 19. in page 109, line 42, leave out 'cost' and insert 'expense'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 208, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 209 to 262 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 263

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART VIII

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 144, line 34, after 'dwelling', insert
'(in provisions relating to housing action areas)'.

No. 21, in page 144, line 40, after 'lease', insert `, lessee and lessor'.

No. 22, in page 144, at end insert—


'tenancy and tenant
section 621'.



—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 263, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 263 to 293 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 294

EXTINGUISHMENT OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OVER LAND ACQUIRED

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 160, line 19, leave out from 'prescribed' to 'before' in line 20 and insert
'and if objection to the order is made to the Secretary of State'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 294, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 295 to 322 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 323

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART IX

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 176, line 5, at beginning insert' lease,'.

No. 25, in page 176, line 12, at end insert—


'prescribed
section 614


reasonable expense
section 321'.



—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 323, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 324 to 335 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 336

POWER TO REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF RENT BOOK

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 182, line 4. leave out 'house' and insert 'dwelling'. [The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 336, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 337

POWER OF ENTRY TO DETERMINE PERMITTED NUMBER OF PERSONS

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 182, line 17, leave out 'house' and insert 'dwelling'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 337, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 338 to 341 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 342

MEANING OF SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION"

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 183, line 35, leave out 'house' and insert 'dwelling'.

No. 29, in page 183, line 36, leave out 'house' and insert `dwelling'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 342, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 343 to 352 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 353

APPEAL AGAINST NOTICE UNDER S. 352

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 191, line 17, leave out 'Or and insert `(c)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 353, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 354 to 357 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 358

SERVICE OF OVERCROWDING NOTICE

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 194, line 21. leave out 'house' and insert 'premises'.

No. 32, in page 194, line 30, leave out '1' and insert `4'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 358, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 359 to 399 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 400

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART XI

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 219, line 33, at end insert—
['tenant section 621'.]—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 400, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 401 to 433 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 434

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART XIII

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 234, line 30, at end insert—


'housing authority'
section 4(a)'.



—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 434, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 435 to 458 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 459

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART XIV

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 249, line 2, at end insert—


'first time purchaser
section 449(2)(d)'.

No. 36, in page 249, line 16, at end insert—


`recognised body
section 441(1)


recognised lending institution
section 447


recognised savings institution
section 448'


—[The Solicitor-General].

Clause 459, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 460 to 462 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 463

PRELIMINARY CONDITION: THE INTEREST OF THE APPLICANT IN THE PROPERTY

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 251, line 16. after `until', insert 'they are satisfied that'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 463, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 464 to 525 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 526

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART XV

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 284, line 34, at end insert—


'general improvement area
section 253'.

No. 39, in page 284, line 36, at end insert—


'housing action area
section 239'.

No. 40, in page 295, line 10, at end insert—


`tenancy and tenant
section 621'.


—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 526, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 527 to 530 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 531

CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY: DISPOSAL BY PUBLIC SECTOR AUTHORITY, &C

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 287, line 23, leave out '527(1)(c)' and insert '527(d)'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 531, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 532 to 602 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 603

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: PART XVII

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 330, line 35, at end insert—


'closing order
section 267(1)


demolition order (generally)
section 267(1)


(in Schedules 24 and 25)
section 588(2)'.



—[The Solicitor-General]

Clause 603, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 604 to 613 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 614

POWER TO PRESCRIBE FORMS &C

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 335, line 24, leave out from 'prescribed' to end of line 25 and insert 'or'.

No. 44, in page 335, line 31, at end insert—
'(3) The power conferred by this section is not exercisable where specific provision for prescribing a thing, or the form of a document, is made elsewhere.'—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 614, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 615 to 618 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 619

THE INNER AND MIDDLE TEMPLES

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 337, line 37, leave out
'section 82 of the London Government Act 1963'
and insert
'section 94 of the Local Government Act 1985'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 619, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 620 and 621 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 622

MINOR DEFINITIONS: GENERAL

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 339, line 5, leave out
'the Greater London Council or'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 622, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 623 and 624 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 625

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 340, line 46, leave out `lst January' and insert '1st April'.—[The Solicitor-General]

Clause 625, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

ADDITIONAL POWERS OF AUTHORITIES IN LONDON

'— (1) A London borough council may provide and maintain, in connection with housing accommodation provided by them under Part II buildings or parts of buildings adapted for use for any commercial purpose.
(2) A local housing authority in Greater London may make arrangements for the rehousing of any person by another such authority; and the arrangements may include provision for the payment of contributions by the former authority to the latter.
(3) The council of an Inner London borough and the Common Council of the City of London may, for the purpose of facilitating the erection of houses in their district, suspend, alter or relax the provisions of any enactment or byelaw relating to the formation or laying out of new streets or the construction of sewers or of buildings intended for human habitation.
(4) The powers conferred by subsections (1) and (3) are exercisable only with the consent of the Secretary of State.'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

EXERCISE OF POWERS OUTSIDE GREATER LONDON

'—(1) A local housing authority in Greater London shall not exercise any powers under Part II outside Greater London unless it appears to the Secretary of State, on an application by the authority, expedient that the needs of the authority's district with respect to the provision of housing accommodation should be satisfied by the provision of such accommodation outside Greater London, and he consents to the exercise of the power.
(2) The power conferred by section (Additional powers of authorities in London) (1) (provision of commercial buildings) shall not be exercised outside Greater London except with the consent of the council of the district concerned.'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1 disagreed to.

Schedules 2 to 10 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 11

RECOVERY OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 379, line 36, leave out 'notice or' and insert
`demand or copy, or of the'.-[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 12 to 14 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 15

THE KEEPING OF THE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 406, line 43, leave 'paragraph 12 of Schedule 1' and insert
'section 23(3) of the London Government Act 1963 (orders transferring land held by London borough council or Common Council of City of London)'.

No. 51, in page 407, line 9, leave out 'paragraph 12 of Schedule 1' and insert
'section 23(3) of the London Government Act 1963'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

SCHEDULE 16

SUPERSEDED CONTRIBUTIONS, GRANTS, SUBSIDIES, &C.

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 408, line 20 leave out from 'with' to end of line 21 and insert 'the following provisions of this paragraph'.

No. 53, in page 408, line 30, at end insert—
(2A) The limit referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) is in the case of a condition imposed before 8th December 1965—

(a) if the tenancy is a regulated tenancy (other than a converted tenancy within the meaning of Schedule 17 to the Rent Act 1977), the rent which would be recoverable if the tenancy had been converted from being a controlled tenancy on the commencement of section 64 of the Housing Act 1980 and accordingly as if it were a converted tenancy;
(b) if the tenancy is a converted tenancy, or a housing association tenancy within the meaning of Part VI of the Rent Act 1977, the rent recoverable under that Act;
(c) if the tenancy is a protected occupancy or statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, the rent recoverable in accordance with that Act;
(d) in any other case, such rent as may from time to time be, or have been, agreed between the landlord and the

local housing authority or as may, in default of agreement, be or have been determined by the Secretary of State.
(2B) The limit referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) is in the case of a condition imposed on or after 8th December 1965 such rent as the local housing authority may from time to time determine as being in their opinion the rent which would have been appropriate for them to charge if the house had been provided by them.'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.

SCHEDULE 17

LOCAL AUTHORITY MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES

Amendment made, No. 54, in page 413, leave out line 34 and insert—
'(b) for other sums left outstanding, the county fund in the case of a county council and the general rate fund or general fund in any other case.'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 18 to 20 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 21

ASSISTANCE BY WAY OF REPURCHASE

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 424, line 5, after `part', insert 'of this Act'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 22 to 25 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Housing Associations Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

DISPOSITIONS EXCEPTED FROM S. 9

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 6, line 28, leave out second '2' and insert '3'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 9, line 3, leave out 'co-operative' and insert 'fully mutual'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 15, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SS. I6 AND I7 IN RELATION TO REGISTERED CHARITIES

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 11, line 2, after 'or'—[The Solicitor-General]

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

PROJECTS QUALIFYING FOR GRANT: DISPOSAL TO TENANT OF CHARITABLE HOUSING ASSOCAITION, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 23, line 32, leave out '6' and insert '5'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH GRANTY MAY BE REDUCED, SUSPENDED OR RECLAIMED

Amendment made: No.5, in page 28, line 1, leave out 9' and insert' '8'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 to 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 81

FURTHER ADVANCES IN CASE OF DISPOSAL ON SHARED OWNERSHIP LEASE

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 44, line 14, leave '9' and insert '8'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 82 to 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101

MINOR DEFINITIONS

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 55, line 5, after 'a', insert 'building'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 102 and 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104

PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 9, line 3, leave out 'co-operative' and insert 'fully mutual'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106

MINOR DEFINITIONS-GENERAL

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 57, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert
`sections 84(5) and 85(4) includes the Inner London Education authority and a joint authority established by part IV of the Local Government Act 1985'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 106, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 59, line 8, leave out `lst January' and insert `lst April'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

GRANT-AIDED LAND

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 61, line 15, at end insert—
`section 119 of the Housing Act 1957,
Section 152 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966.'.

No. 12, in page 61, line 20, at end insert—
`section 47 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958, section 78 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1950,
Section 24 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968.'.

No. 13, in page 61, line 26, after '1961', insert—
`section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962.'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2

FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO CERTAIN DISPOSALS OF HOUSES

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 62, line 4, leave out `first disposal' and insert
`conveyance, grant or assignment.'.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

HOUSING ASSOCIATION FINANCE: SUPERSEDED SUBSIDIES, CONTRIBUTIONS AND GRANTS

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 72, line 3, leave out from `to' to end of line 4 and insert
'the financial year 1986–87 and subsequent financial years'.

No. 16, in page 75, line 3, leave out from `to' to end of line 4 and insert
'the financial year 1986–87 and subsequent financial years'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Housing (Consequential Provisions l Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair.]

Clauses I and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, line 26, leave out `16, 19 or 20' and insert '15, 18 or 19'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 3, leave out `1st January' and insert '1st April.'

No. 3. in page 3, line 8, after '13', insert '14A'.

No. 4, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'and 51 to 57' and insert 
'49A, 51 to 57 and 58A'.

No. 5, in page 3, line 9, at end insert 'and 58B'.

No. 6, in page 3, line 15, leave out '25 to 30' and insert `25 to 29, 31'.

No. 7, in page 3, line 21, leave out '30'. —[The Solicitor-General].

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 4, line 47, column 3, leave out 'Sections 21 to 23' and insert 'Section 21'. No. 9, in page 7, leave out lines 18 and 19.

No. 10, in page 7, line 28, column 3, leave out '118(1) and insert '118'.

No. 11, in page 7, line 28, column 3, at end insert `Section 145.'.

No. 12, in page 8, line 9, column 3, leave out 'in'. No. 13, in page 10, line 5, at end insert—


'1985 c. 51.
Local Government Act 1985.
In Schedule 8, paragraphs 12(1) and (3) to (5) and 14(3).




In Schedule 13, in paragraph 21, the words "and section 80(1) (c) of the Housing Act 1980".




In Schedule 14, paragraphs 58(a) to (d) and (f) to (h), 64 and 65.'.

No. 14, in page 10, line 39, at end insert—


`1975 c.45.
Finance (No. 2) Act 1975.
In section 69(3)(e), the words "housing society".




In Section 71(3), the words from '"housing society- to "1964". '.

No. 15, in page 12, line 18, at beginning insert—


`1975 c.45.
Finance (No. 2) Act 1975.
In Section 69(3)(e), the words "housing society". 




In section 71(3), the words from " 'housing society- to "1964".'.

—[The Solicitor-General].

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 12, line 41, leave out 'the Greater London Council'.

No. 17, in page 13, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert—
'(a) in paragraph 2(1)(a)(i) (standard of alternative accommodation) for "the local authority for the purposes of Part V of the Housing Act 1936" substitute "the local housing authority within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985" and after "or, as the case may be" insert "the local authority";'.

No. 18, in page 13, line 33, leave out 'under Part II of ' and insert 'within the meaning of'.

No. 19, in page 13, line 44, leave out '25' and insert `24'.

No. 20, in page 14, leave out lines 46 to 48.

No. 21, in page 15, line 40, leave out '24 and 25' and insert '23 and 24'.

No. 22, in page 16, line 16, leave out '24' and insert '23'.

No. 23, in page 16, line 20, leave out '24' and insert
'23'.

No. 24, in page 16, line 21, leave out '23' and insert `22'.

No. 25, in page 16, line 25, leave out '24' and insert '23'

No. 26, in page 16, line 29. leave out '25' and insert '24'.

No. 27, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'deposits' and insert 'loans to or deposits'.

No. 28, in page 18, line 42, leave out paragrah 8.

No. 29, in page 20, line 21, at end insert—
'Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1967 (c.xx)
14A. In section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1967 (application of provisions of Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 to acquisition by agreement of land for certain housing purposes), in subsection (1) for "Part V of the Act of 1957", in both places where it occurs, and for "the said Part V", substitute "Part II of the Housing Act 1985".'.

No. 30, in page 22, line 5, leave out '10' and insert '8'.

No. 31, in page 24, line 19, leave out '25' and insert'24'.

No. 32, in page 24, leave out lines 33 to 48 and insert —
'(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, the 'relevant authority' for the purposes of this section is the local housing authority within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985.".'.

No. 33, in page 25, line 42, leave out '25' and insert '24'.

No. 34, in page 26, line 44, at end insert—
'Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 (c.xxx)
29A. — (1) Section 7 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 (byelaws as to parking, &amp;c. on housing estates) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (extension of power to make byelaws)—

(a) for "subsection (1) of section 112 of the Housing Act 1957" substitute "section 23(1) of the Housing Act 1985", and
(b) for "Part V" substitute "Part II".
(3) In subsection (2) (extension of ancillary provisions) for "the said section 112" substitute "section 23(1) of the Housing Act 1985".'.

No. 35, in page 27, leave out lines 1 to 28.

No. 36, in page 28, line 6, leave out from 'of' to end of line 13 and insert 'the Housing Act 1985'.

No. 37, in page 28, line 37, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 40 and insert 'the Housing Act 1985'.

No. 38, in page 29, line 12, leave out from first 'of to end of line 13 and insert 'the Housing Act 1985'.

No. 39, in page 29, line 33, at end insert—
'(c) for the words from "(which impose" to "houses)" substitute "which imposes a rent limit in respect of the dwelling-house".'.

No. 40, in page 30, line 3, leave out 'Part' and insert 'Act'.

No. 41, in page 30, line 5, leave out from 'for' to end of line and insert
'local authority under section 82(1) of the Housing Act 1974" substitute "local housing authority under'.

No. 42, in page 30, leave out lines 7 to 20.

No. 43, in page 30, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert—

'(a) for "housing authority" wherever occurring substitute "local housing authority";
(b) in paragraph 6 (overcrowding) for "the Housing Act 1957" substitute "Part X of the Housing Act 1985";
(c) for paragraph 8 (meaning of "housing authority" and "district") substitute—
8. In this Part 'local housing authority' and 'district' in relation to such an authority have the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985.".'.

No. 44, in page 31, line 1, leave out from 'the' to end of line 8 and insert
'same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985'.

No. 45, in page 32, line 34, leave out from first 'of'
to 'towards' in line 35 and insert 'the Housing Act 1985'.

No. 46, in page 33, line 4, leave out 'section 1 of'.

No. 47, in page 34, line 18, leave out from 'of' to end of line 19 and insert 'the Housing Act 1985'.

No. 48, in page 36, line 19, leave out from 'of' to end of line 20 and insert 'the Housing Act 1985'.

No. 49, in page 36, line 31, leave out '15' and insert `14'

No. 50, in page 36, line 37, at end insert—
'Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981 (c.xvii) 49A.—(1) Part IV of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981 (control of overcrowding in certain hostels) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 9(1) (overcrowding notices), in the proviso (cases where similar restrictions are in force), for the words from "applied" to the end substitute "for the time being applied to the premises by a registration scheme under section 346 of the Housing Act 1985, a direction under section 354 of that Act, or an overcrowding notice under section 358 of that Act".
(3) In section 12(1) (penalties), in the proviso (exclusion where a person previously convicted under other similar provisions), for the words from "section 90(13)" to the end substitute "section 355(2) or 358(4) of the Housing Act 1985".
(4) In section 16 (premises exempted from controls)—

(a) in paragraph (e) (registered common lodging houses), for "section 238 of the Act of 1936" substitute "Part XII of the Housing Act 1985";
(b) in paragraph (1) (premises run by registered housing associations), for "Part II of the Housing Act 1974" substitute "the Housing Associations Act 1985".'.

No. 51, in page 38, line 7, leave out 'or the Greater London Council'.

No. 52, in page 38, line 8, leave out 'authority or Council's' and insert 'authority's'.

No. 53, in page 38, line 14, leave out 'or Council'. No. 54, in page 38, line 19, leave out paragraph 53. No. 55, in page 38, line 44, at end insert—
'Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1982 (c.i)
54A. In section 4 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1982 (removal of vehicles illegally parked on housing estates)—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words from subsection (1)" to "Housing Act 1957" substitute "section 23(1) of the Housing Act 1985 (byelaws for regulation of authority's houses)";
(b) in the same subsection for "Part V of the said Act of


1957" substitute "Part II of the Housing Act 1985";
(c) in subsection (2) for "the said section 112" substitute "section 23(1) of the Housing Act 1985".'.

No. 56, in page 40, line 12, at end insert—
'Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984 (c. xxvii) 58A.;—(1) The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 10 (registration of certain sleeping accommodation: buildings to which the provisions apply), in subsection (2) (exceptions)—

(a) in paragraph (h) (premises run by registered housing association), for "Part II of the Housing Act 1974" substitute "the Housing Associations Act 1985";
(b) in paragraph (m) (registered common lodging houses), for "section 238 of the Public Health Act 1936" substitue "Part XII of the Housing Act 1985"
(3) In section 39 (occupants removed from buildings to have priority housing need), for 'the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977' substitute "part III of the Housing Act 1985 (housing the homeless)".'.

No. 57, in page 40, line 12, at end insert—

'Local Government Act 1985 (c.51)

58B. In Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985 (provisions with respect to residuary bodies) for paragraphs 22 and 23 (application of certain housing enactments) substitute—
22. A residuary body shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the following provisions of the Housing Act 1985—

sections 43 and 44 (consent required for certain disposals of houses),
sections 45 to 51 (restrictions on recovery of service charges after disposal of house),
Parts IV and V (secure tenancies and the right to buy),
sections 442 (so far as related to agreements within subsection (1)(b)), 443 and 444, 452 and 453 (provision in connection with local authority mortgages), and
Part XVI (assistance for owners of defective premises disposed of by local authorities and others).
23. A residuary body shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of sections 84(5)(b) and 85(4) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (consultation on forms of agreement and meaning of "relevant advance").
24. A residuary body shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the following provisions of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985—

section 14(4) (exclusion of implied repairing obligations), and
sections 18 to 30 (service charges).".' — [The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

SCHEDULE 3

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 40, line 41, column 2, leave out `1st January' and insert '1st April'.

No. 59, in page 40, line 42, column 1, after '427', insert 'of that Act'.

No. 60, in page 40, line 42, column 2, leave out `1985–86' and insert '1986–87'.

No. 61, in page 41, line 6, leave out `1st January' and insert `lst April'.

No. 62, in page 41, line 12, leave out `lst January' and insert '1st April'.

No. 63, in page 41, line 13, at end insert—
`Commencement of the Local Government Act 1985 (c.. 51)
5. —(1) The consolidating Acts and the Local Government Act 1985 shall be construed and have effect as if the consolidating Acts had come into force immediately after that Act.
(2) References to a local authority in provisions of the consolidating Acts which confer powers, duties, rights or immunities by reference to things done by or in relation to a local authority before 1st April 1986 include references to the councils abolished by the Local Government Act 1985.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in particular to the following provisions—

section 45(2)(b) of the Housing Act 1985 (restriction on service charges payable after disposal of house by local authority),
section 444(4) of that Act and section 85(4) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (power to agree to indemnify mortgagee of property disposed of by local authority),
section 573(1) of the Housing Act 1985 (definition of public sector authority for the purposes of assistance for persons having acquired defective housing from such an authority),
paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 4 to that Act (public sector landlords for purposes of qualifying period for the right to buy),
section 41(2) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (approval of programme for purposes of housing association grant), and
section 14(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (exclusion of implied repairing obligation in case of lease granted by local authority).'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4

SAVINGS

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 42, line 30, leave out `lst January' and insert `lst April'.

No. 65, in page 42, line 36, leave out '1st January' and insert `lst April'.

No. 66, in page 42, line 40, leave out `1st January' and insert `lst April'.

No. 67, in page 45, line 38, leave out '1st January' and insert '1st April'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Landlord and Tenant Bill

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. Ernest Armstrong in the Chair]

Clauses Nos. 1 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

MINOR DEFINITIONS

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 21, line 22, leave out 'the Greater London Council,'.

No. 2, in page 21, line 24, at end insert
'and in sections 14(4), 26(1) and 28(6) includes the Inner London Education Authority and a joint authority established by Part IV of the Local Government Act 1985'.

No. 3, in page 21, line 25, leave out from 'authority"' to end of line 27 and insert
'has the meaning given by section 1 of the Housing Act 1985'.
—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 22, line 48, leave out 1st January' and insert 1st April'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order. Before we conclude what may seem to some a bizarre ritual, I wish, as a lawyer and housing

spokesman, to say that what we have just done will make life much easier for many people. As the Law Commission said in its report, we have effectively consolidated the whole of housing law, the whole of landlord and tenant law and the whole of housing associations law into one measure. Only two other bits—the rent and leasehold legislation—remain elsewhere on the statute book.
In view of the difficulties faced by anybody who slogs from one piece of legislation to another trying to match them together—remembering that, in housing matters, non-lawyers as well as people trained to give legal advice must perform that task—the Solicitor-General was right to pay tribute to the Law Commission for endeavouring to ensure that we not only bring our law up to date and dispose of what should not be on the statute book, but make the law intelligible for those who must apply it.
If ever a subject was part of the day-to-day application of legislation, it is housing. Thanks to the work of the Law Commission, and with little thanks to ourselves, we have done a good deed in a bizarre and ritualistic way. I hope that people will be thankful for the last legislative act of this Session of this Parliament.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Further to the point of order. I respond to the words so gracefully spoken by the hon. Gentleman by saying that I should be sad if it were an accurate reflection that there was an inverse proportion between the words spoken in this Chamber and the good that we do. I am grateful for what he said and I am sure that his words will be gratefully received by those to whom they were addressed.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Social Security

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The next item on the Order Paper is the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous and Temporary Provisions Regulations 1985.

Mr. Hugh Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As these regulations are not being moved by the Government, is it in order for me to debate the Question that they be not moved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the instrument is not moved, it is not before the House.

Mr. Brown: Why, then, does the Question need to be put? I understood that you called the Minister to move the regulations, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why, then, is there no Question before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The regulations were not moved, so they are not before the House. It is not a matter for me to decide. I can give the Minister the opportunity to move the instrument, but if he decides not to move it, then it is not before the House and, therefore, it cannot be debated.

Mr. Brown: I do not want to be difficult, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have been long enough in the House to know that there is never an easy answer to some of the questions that hon. Members put to the Chair. However, I find it surprising that the Government should have given no explanation about why they are not moving the regulations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Government, not for me. If they decide not to move an instrument, there is nothing that I can do about it.

Health Authorities (Resources)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Neubert. ]

Mr. Michael Mates: I am glad to give the Minister this opportunity to answer some of the questions that my hon. Friends and I have been raising about the resources allocation in the south-west Thames region to one of its districts.
In the west Surrey and north-east Hampshire district health area there have been proposals to close and reduce three facilities, action which would have a major impact on the lives of people living there. I refer to the closure of the Fleet hospital, the cessation of surgery at Farnham hospital and the closure of a ward at Frimley Park general hospital.
Had such a proposal been tough but fair and in line with Government policy, I should have been inclined to accept it and explain to my constituents the rationale behind it, because in general terms I believe that the Government's policy is right. However, the effects of the proposal, if it were implemented, would be neither fair nor reasonable, a fact that has been accepted by the regional health authority and the Department of Health.
Historically, the district has been under-funded and this lack of resources has been exacerbated by the fact that we live in an area where growth in house building, and therefore new population, has been particularly rapid. The cumulative effect of this is that those within the area, my constituents among them, are being unfairly and ever increasingly discriminated against in the amount of health resources they receive.
Under the RAWP formula, which is the main plank of the Government's policy, the district is receiving about £78 per patient against a national average of £100 and a regional average of £109—in other words, considerably less than the resources to which it should be entitled. In our region, this imbalance is as great as in any region in the country. For example, the Wandsworth district receives £156, per patient, more than double the amount that is received by west Surrey or north-east Hampshire.
In addition, the district's performance indicators, which are the Government's measures of efficiency and productivity, are the best in the region. The cumulative effect of this is that the district with the least resources but the best record of efficiency is continually under-funded while others which operate less efficiently continue to be over-funded.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject. I am also involved, as my constituency contains Farnham hospital. I ask my hon. Friend to reaffirm that in our district the efficiency of patient turnover and cost effectiveness are amongst the best in the country. Nobody is seeking an unfair allocation of resources. We all want a fair allocation of resources and the avoidance of waste in the interests of patient care. However, am I not right in thinking that our figures are among the best in the country?

Mr. Mates: My hon. Friend is quite right and no doubt the Minister will agree. These facts are not in dispute. am sure that the Minister will agree that the sum total of these facts is an intolerable situation. However, despite the representations made to the Ministry, it is not prepared to


intervene in the region's management decisions. Despite representations to the region, it is not prepared to intervene in the district's management. The current jargon which has been used by the Minister himself is that management must not be second-guessed. I applaud the Government's efforts to sharpen up management, but they cannot simply back away from highly political decisions by saying that they are not prepared to intervene.
The Minister's job is to see that his policy is having the effect he intends. If not, he has the right and the duty, to give directions that the Government policy is carried out.
I recognise that the region has a difficult task in allocating its shrinking resources. I fully support the Government's decision to reallocate the resources from where they have been historically spent to areas where a new need has arisen. My point is that this admirable policy is being implemented only in a few health districts and that the Minister should ensure that his policy reaches down to the sharp end of the Health Service. We boast, and rightly so, that our record in health service provision in the past six years is second to none. The present policy should result in that excellent record being enhanced. If the Government are unable or unwilling to carry out fine tuning, when for a number of understandable reasons the policy is not working, we shall lose the argument.
My constituents are in an area where an unwanted growth in housing has been foisted upon them and it is no use telling them that the Government's policy is fair and sensible if the reality they see is the closure of and reduction in health services which are already under strain. Nor would I wish to try to do so.
Many Members try to plead special reasons why their constituents should be more favourably treated than others. This is not one of those occasions and forms no part of my argument. I am asking the Government for nothing to which our people are not entitled, nor am I asking the Government to change their policy. I ask only that, having frankly admitted that my constituents are being disadvantaged because of Government policies, the Minister should take steps to correct the situation. Thus I will be able to report that the Government's programme for distribution of health resources is sound and sensible, which I believe it to be, and it is seen to be fairly operated.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am grateful for the opportunity which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) has given me and the House to discuss the important problems to which he has drawn our attention. I congratulate him on the way in which he has demonstrated his concern. I know that that concern is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) and others of my hon. Friends whose constituents serve within the relevant district health authority area.
Before turning to the details of the district and the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred, I hope that he will allow me to make one or two general points to set the issue in context. The title of the debate, which my hon. Friend requested, was "The Allocation of Resources within Regional Health Authorities". It is important to recognise that the resources that we are allocating nationally are increasing and have increased during the

period of this Government at a significant rate. I know that my hon. Friend recognises that, but it is important that the message is communicated again and again to all our constituents. We have doubled spending in cash terms, and in real terms the increase has been over 20 per cent.
The issue is not limited to the transfer of resources because services have improved for patients. That is a measure by which we can stand to be judged, and we are happy to do so. There is often talk about waiting lists, but I regard that as a poor proxy measure. Our achievements in terms of the number of patients treated are much more significant. Only last year, the number of day cases treated nationally rose by 11 per cent. to 903,000 and the number of in-patient cases rose by 2·6 per cent. to 6·18 million. At the same time, we have seen capital expenditure increase significantly. In the five years between 1980 and 1984, there were 36 major new hospital schemes. Progress continues with over 75 major schemes to a total value in excess of £850 million.
My hon. Friend would rightly ask, "What about distribution?" I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends recognise that the significant transfer of resources to health care is commendable, especially at a time when public spending is rightly under pressure. But is distribution unfair, not least in the district health authority in my hon. Friend's constituency? 
Reference has been made to the formidable animal called the Resource Allocation Working Party. The policy of RAWP has been in operation since 1976 and its objective has been accepted by virtually all those concerned, at least in outline. When it pinches on their own interests, however, different views often obtain. There is a broad acceptance of the ideas of RAWP, which are based on the principle of providing equal opportunity of access for health care needs for people at equal risk. The fundamental emphasis is on equality of access. Successive Governments have accepted and implemented the RAWP approach.
As my hon. Friend knows, the RAWP approach involves a complex calculation both of the revenue and capital implications of the target and the fair share of resources. Revenue targets are based fundamentally on relative populations. Population figures are weighted, first, to reflect the make-up of the population by age and sex and to reflect the use that the population makes of health services as analysed over six main blocks of services. Secondly, standardised mortality ratios are used, which the RAWP recommended could be used as a proxy for relative need for health care. This is a complex matter, but it has been accepted that it produces answers which will help to achieve equality of access to health care.
Other factors in the RAWP calculations reflect cross-boundary flows of patients, the existence of teaching facilities, the funding of a small number of supra-regional services and, in the case of the Thames regions, for London weighting. The capital formula is similiar to the complex revenue formula, but is based on population figures projected for the five years ahead of the year of allocation and they deliberately ignore cross-boundary flows.
The application of the RAWP formula to the south-west Thames regional health authority undoubtedly poses a difficult task for that authority over the next 10 years. As a Thames region, it will be expected to release an element of its historically high level of funding for redeployment elsewhere. At the same time, within the region, it has to


plan for revenue to be redistributed from some of its districts, including some in London, to others which its own internal RAWP formula shows are in need of extra money. My hon. Friend has referred to the needs of his district.
Without going further into the minutiae of these calculations, I should like to stress that it is for the regional health authority to determine in the first instance the basis of the principles that we have set nationally. I recognise my hon. Friend's point about the final responsibility of central Government. The district and regional levels are crucial factors in the balance of the operations of the Health Service. The DHSS has received and is examining regional strategic plans which set out the regions' intentions over the next decade. Those plans require ministerial approval. Obviously, my ministerial colleagues and I will be reviewing them carefully.
The south-west Thames regional health authority plan is being considered by the Department. It is expected that it will be with Ministers at the end of the year. Ministers will also have the opportunity to discuss the services and resources with the regional chairman and officers at the annual ministerial review meetings. There is a balance between the responsibilities and duties at the district and regional level and the DHSS.

Mr. Mates: I take that point. However, my hon. Friend is talking in terms of the strategic plan—we are talking about the immediate threat of closure. That is why there is a time element which is not on our side. Ministers should look at this aspect where policies are not working.

Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend talks about the "immediate threat of closure". The proposal—it was no more than that — with respect to the three hospital facilities to which he referred has now been withdrawn. As I understand it, there is no immediate threat of closure. There is a need to ensure that within the RAWP formulae —nationally clown to district health authority level—the proposals are implemented at a measured and sensible pace. There is a strict limit to the pace at which they can be pursued. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the proposals which were floated and which caused such concern have been withdrawn.

Mr. Mates: Unilaterally, but we have not solved the problem. The problem will not go away—it might get worse. That is the real reason why I raised this matter. My hon. Friend should not wait and make the decision next April, because, by that time, the problem will be twice as bad.

Mr. Whitney: If my hon. Friend will allow me, because we are running fast out of time, I wish to draw his attention to two resources that are being moved into the district and must be taken into account in all the calculations. The west Surrey and north east Hampshire district will be receiving more than £5 million extra a year in revenue over the next 10 years. It is important to recognise that already this year that district has had significant financial help from the region. It has received an additional £400,000 a year in recurrent revenue; it has had non-recurrent bridging finance to help the mental illness sector to the tune of £644,000. The region has agreed to underwrite overspending in the mental illness sector this year of £200,000. That adds up to £1 million.
Planning has also started on an extension to the main district general hospital at Frimley Park to provide 110

extra beds. This will cost in excess of £7 million, and the region hopes to start work on it in 1987. Recognising that the district has a low base of capital stock, it bought the Brompton hospital site in the district last year at a cost of about £3.5 million. We should compare that with the position of a district in the same region which has to find ways of coping with a reduction of £1 million this year and nearly £14 million a year by 1994.
The regional chairman wrote to all district chainnen within his region, asking them to examine their spending patterns for the year and, if an overspend was projected, to put forward a package of measures to bring them back to target. The west Surrey and north east Hampshire distrct made public possible ward arid hospital closures to curtail spending before having discussions with the authority and before going through the normal consultation process. As I have said, those plans are not going ahead.
The regional health authority has had to work out a policy for moving resources which it believes to be fair to every district—those that are under-provided as well as the better off ones. When decisions are made, much importance is attached to timing and to the minimum disruption both to the gainers and to the losers. It will be a matter of judgment how fast a pace can be sensibly maintained. In the timing we have to take account of the redistribution of resources to gainers and of the anticipated opening of major capital projects.
In the case of the west Surrey and north east Hampshire district, the bulk of its additional revenue will become available in 1990 and 1991 when the new extension to Frimley Park hospital should be ready to open. By then the district will be getting an extra £4·5 million a year out of a total of 5·1 million planned for 1994.
It has long been our view that every health authority in the country should make every penny that it receives count in the service to patients. It is important that those districts which can show they are not so well off as they might be do not just sit back and wait for more money. They must review every aspect of their services to make sure that they are fully effective and efficient. We have asked authorities to provide cost improvement programmes which show a saving of at least 1 per cent. of their revenue base. Districts can then retain these savings to be used for service development as they think necessary. We have also encouraged authorities to put some of their housekeeping services — cleaning, laundry and catering — out to competitive tender as a means of making savings. The House should know that the south west Thames region has already made enormous progress in this area and is to be congratulated on the excellent results achieved.
I am aware that this district, as well as the Basingstoke and north Hampshire health authority will be affected by plans to build more dwellings in the area up to 1991. Naturally that causes concern to the health authorities which have to provide extra services for the additional population. I know that both districts have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about alterations to the structure plan which will propose that the number of new dwellings should be increased to 20,000. I assure my hon. Friend that I will write to the chairman of the two regional health authorities concerned and ask them whether these developments were taken into account when their 10-year resource plans were drawn up. If not, I hope they will


consider looking again at the level of provision set aside for these districts in the context of their resource distribution policy.
I hope that what I have said will go at least some way —I must not be too optimistic—to reassure my hon. Friends that we recognise the pressures. I hope that they understand that the movement towards meeting their RAWP targets is happening, although it will not be at the pace that we should all like for reasons which I hope that we all understand. Nevertheless, the movement is in the right direction. The problems of the area are understood at district and regional levels and also in the Department, but we must continue to look for the good housekeeping which experience has shown can be achieved throughout the country.
I now appreciate that the alarm and dismay that was caused when the proposals were floated had a singularly unfortunate impact in the constituencies of my hon. Friends. I hope that they now recognise that the very significant transfer of resources that we are making to our health effort is producing results throughout the country and that their district is not being neglected but will be able to look forward to an increasing share of the resources available in years to come. We must, however, be governed by the realities of the problem and the need to balance, in this case, the demands of inner London against the growing demands creating by the rising population of my hon. Friend's district.

Mr. Mates: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. All that he has just said is correct, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make another speech unless the Minister has not yet concluded his remarks.

Mr. Whitney: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mates: All that my hon. Friend the Minister has said reinforces the points that I have made. We are indeed short of resources, and resources are being reallocated slowly—I understand all the arguments about that—but proposals, for example, to close a ward at Frimley Park hospital when we are getting ready to build a whole new

extension make the whole problem, which is really just an accounting problem, even more ludicrous in the eyes of the people in the district.
My hon. Friend the Minister talks of the proposals having being been withdrawn as though that meant that the problem had gone away. In fact, by refusing to carry out the region's instructions the district health authority has now put itself in the red, so the problem has not gone away. Indeed, there is a risk that it will get worse in the next six months and that even more severe cuts will be required next April when the overspend will have grown because the savings will not have been made because the proposals have been withdrawn. The Department's complacent view that it will all come out in the wash may be true in four or five years' time, but it is not true for those actually being deprived of patient care at this moment.

Mr. Whitney: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that people are not being deprived of patient care at this moment. The proposals have been withdrawn, but the Department is certainly not complacent. There is an overall framework—we seem to agree on that—and the movement towards it is steady. Indeed, on the figures that I have given, I would say that the movement is impressive. Nevertheless, we must look to the district to play its part in meeting the imperatives which none of us can escape. Much has been achieved in many other districts by way of cost improvements and, indeed, rationalisation. From time to time that must include hospital closures because there are many small, inefficient and inaccessible hospitals. I make no comment on these particular instances, but in some circumstances that may well make sense because it is a major part of our policy—and one which I certainly stand by —that having appointed regional and district health authorities we must, within very broad parameters, allow them to make their management judgments within the resource implications that we impose. I was about to say "resource constraints", but it is important to recognise that the district health authority will have an expanding budget at its disposal. We look to the authority to use that expanding budget sensibly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.